The text originally on the earlier post was larger, but to make it shorter I removed some parts and tried to be more objective and right on the subject. I also had tried to detach my own opinions on part 1 to focus on an interpretation very close to Jung, even at cost of understanding sometimes. There are others things to talk about – things that might generate doubts and things that requires more depth. Sadly, I won’t be able to write every note I would for now (because the notes here have been delaying me to post the original text for weeks now), just the ones I think are the most important.
QUICK TEMP NOTE: I still need to do websites updates (to rename and redivide the main site sections according to this), but I have been a little busy so this will take some time.
Explaining “stacks”
Jung does not have a stack, yet I did draw 4 stacks position, one for each function.
The main difference between me and the other sources are these:
1) Every position on my stack exists on Jung typology. As I had implied earlier, Jung originally only have 4 positions: Principal, Auxiliary, Inferior Pair, Inferior function. There is no 5th slot, 6th slot, etc… No trickster slot, etc… None of these.
2) I use the 4 functions because there are actually 4 and not 8.
I think for clarity I would rather explain each “slot” in more detail, more for the sake of understanding rather than officiating anything.
1: Primary function: Primary function is a function that is very or totally differentiated. The attitude is aligned with Extraversion, Introversion or can have an undifferentiated attitude (just N). For example, a person with a strong E direction and long N function won’t use N on an introverted attitude much. However, for most people the primary is very yet not fully differentiated on the attitude, meaning that this function will be mostly used on one of directions, but sometimes will be used in the other direction as well (yeah, Jung typology is more ‘gray’ then black and white – actually, every time I say totally differentiated it is fully black and white, and every time I say undifferentiated is completely gray). If a person has a weak-short primary function, then this function will only be partially differentiated, meaning that it will be more reactive, and this reactiveness for consequence makes the inferior less differentiated as well. So, a person with a short N function will have some few reactive uses of S. When a N-dom person is on an environment that forces the use of the S function, then the N it is imminent that N will have a weak primary function. Also, in the case of a function having an Extravert orientation, it will be more likely short.
2: Secondary function: The secondary function is only partially differentiated, not fully differentiated and that is why the attitude of E/I is not applied to it. The second function depends on the primary function on its use and will have an attitude according to the primary demands, and these demands are not fixed (so a primary i or e function won’t demand anything e/i specific to the secondary function). Just an example, if a Ne type is pursuing a possibility where the person needs to make others happy and ‘conquer’ others sympathy, the person will use Feeling in an Extraverted attitude. If a Ne type is pursuing a possibility that requires an intense feeling, like being on an experience that evoke intense feelings, then Feeling will be on an introverted orientation. Sometimes it will be of neither orientation as well. Along that, since the secondary function is partially undifferentiated, it will also be subject to the convenience of the environment on its orientation, so contexts that requires a more extraverted or introverted orientation will actually affects the secondary function first (and actually the tertiary) and the primary only later. The secondary function is partially reactive, meaning that it will be E or I according to the reaction, however that depends on the intensity of it. This is why we don’t assign any specific attitude orientation (E/I orientation) for the secondary function. A weak secondary function will have a tendency to be quite reactive and adaptive, because it is less differentiated. A normal one will be partially reactive. If the secondary function is long, then it is no longer much reactive. Although I explain this with my words and I like using the word ‘reactive’ from the enneagram (the reactive here is very similar to the reactiveness of an enneagram type 6), it holds completely true to Jung. There is only one exception: If a person has a strong-long secondary function, which implies a long primary function, and a strong orientation towards a E or a I type, then in that case the secondary function follows the primary on the E/I orientation and on the ENFI case we have a Ne-Fe type, on the INFR a Fi-Ni type and that goes on. However, when that happens it is always considered unhealthy.
Tertiary: Here we got a little bit on a messy part because I haven’t truly figured the unconscious theory of Jung partially because Jung said that the inferior function is fully conscious in one part and then said the inferior is fully unconscious in another. I avoided reaching the unconscious because not only is hard to understand but I think there are studies that refutes the Jung’s view of the unconscious as primitive and unsophisticated. The tertiary is the inferior pair, and it works as the auxiliary function of the inferior function, but that only has meaning for the unconscious. In conscious terms, the tertiary function should work partially like the second, however it is slightly avoided because the secondary function suppresses it. So, a person will use it the tertiary function also on a reactive way and with the environment influences, and will change the E/I attitude accordingly, this function might aid the primary but will be partially avoided.
Inferior: Jung says the inferior is undifferentiated, however I think it is differentiated – it is an avoidance preference, the person avoids it, so that could count as differentiation. It is the opposite of the primary. It will be avoided at all costs, a person only uses the inferior if the other 3 functions can’t be used to solve the issue or solve the issues poorly. In theory, a person that is forced to use the inferior very often gets stressed.
Also, which stacks would be for each type? Well, remember when we speak of a function “stack” for Jung typology, we are only referring to the function-type of Jung typology and NOT the attitude type. With that in mind, the Jung “stacks” are easy:
Type: Primary>Auxiliary>Tertiary>Inferior
Si type: S>T=F>N
Se type: S>T=F>N
Ni type: N>T=F>S
Ne type: N>T=F>S
Te type: T>N=S>F
Ti type: T>N=S>F
Fe type: F>N=S>T
Fi type: F>N=S>T
Fi-n: F>N>S>T
Fe-n: F>N>S>T
Fi-s: F>S>N>T
Fe-s: F>S>N>T
Ti-n: T>N>S>F
Te-n: T>N>S>F
Ti-s: T>S>N>F
Te-s: T>S>N>F
Ni-t: N>T>F>S
Ne-t: N>T>F>S
Ni-f: N>F>T>S
Ne-f: N>F>T>S
Si-t: S>T>F>N
Se-t: S>T>F>N
Si-f: S>F>T>N
Se-f: S>F>T>N
Stages of differentiation
Jung Typology has 8 main types, however it does actually have a total of 141 types if we consider all degrees of differentiation (considering Chapter X and the ‘psychopathology’ chapter) in all domains (E/I and functions, with primary and secondary functions), but I will only list the 31 types, and in Jung terms, only 16 are considered ‘ideal’ and healthy. Jung does have degrees of differentiation, but not stages of differentiation, but I think that explaining stages of differentiation aids clarity for the whole theory. What people usually say out there on Jung typology as ‘stage of development’ is some sort of a distorted version (with some good modifications and some modifications that goes against Jung typology) of what in Jung typology is called ‘differentiation process’ and I will distort it a bit for the sake of clarity as ‘stages of differentiation’. Notice that these stages are approximately, but not exactly, equal in terms of differentiation. Introverted types are slightly more differentiated than extroverted types as stated by Jung, and I do have the impression that people who are have a E/I attitude with no secondary function differentiation are more differentiated than people who have a secondary function but has no E/I attitude type (or which the E/I attitude type is the undifferentiated type)
STAGE 1: In this stage, the person is completely undifferentiated. Here, we have the undifferentiated type, although for Jung undifferentiated is a state, not a type. Jung considers this state to be primitive, archaic, and it is the initial point of Jung typology. In this stage, a person has a very weak or non-existent sense of self. Most people on this stage are on enneagram 6, with some on enneagram 9, and ‘score’ as these on the enneagram test.
Types:
– U type (undifferentiated type)
STAGE 2: In this stage, there is either the rise of the first function or the rise of an attitude (E or I), while the other parts keep undifferentiated. The person is mostly reactive but still have a kind of preference. In this stage, the person has a weak sense of self. Types:
– E type (the Extraverted type)
– I type
– N type
– S type
– T type
– F type
STAGE 3: In this stage, the person either have a clear primary function with a clear E/I attitude or a clear primary function and a secondary function without a clear E/I attitude. In this case, there is a moderate-good sense of self. This is the stage where the 8 main types of the Chapter X are, however this stage has two divisions, and in this case we can divide healthy vs unhealthy. Healthy types does have a moderate primary function and moderate E/I attitude; Unhealthy and ‘distorted’ types have a very strong/long primary function and a very strong E/I attitude, and this makes them overly rigid. For example, a type with a too strong N function and with a very high Introversion will be a lot Schyzotypal, weird, eccentric, unable to communicate like is talking on an ancient language, etc…. All types on Chapter X are on this stage and are on the unhealthy category, they all have a long primary function and a strong E or I attitude, and that is why they are ‘distorted’ and they are not common along people nor healthy, but they serve very well to describe the types. Types:
– Ne type (extraverted intuitive type)
– Ni type
– Se type
– Si type
– Fe type
– Fi type
– Te type
– Ti type
– N-t type (intuitive type with auxiliary thinking and no E/I attitude, ambivert)
– N-f type
– S-t type
– S-f type
– T-n type
– T-s type
– F-n type
– F-s type
STAGE 4: This is the last stage. On this stage,a person has a defined E/I attitude, a clear primary function and a clear secondary function. This is the desired stage for MBTI (plus a clear preference for J or P) and the ideal stage for Jung. In this stage a person is quite differentiated and healthy when the person has a moderate E/I attitude, a moderate primary function and a moderate secondary function – this is what Jung considers as ideal and healthy and, lets say, ‘mature’, although that is really forcing the ‘mature’ word. And this is the ‘fully developed’ stage, however this is also forcing the word ‘develop’ quite a bit. If the person has a long/too strong primary function or long/too strong secondary function or long/too strong E/I attitude, then the person is unhealthy. When the person has these 3 things simultaneously, you have a fully differentiated type, however a fully differentiated type is very unhealthy and the majority, if not all of them, does have one or more personality disorders. A fully differentiated type has a very black and white approach to life, is overly ‘rigid’ (which is the opposite of the ‘flexibility’ of the undifferentiated type), so, for example, a full differentiated Ni-T or Ti-N (actually, this is the exceptional case where the secondary function has a clear E/I orientation, so its a Ni-Ti or Ti-Ni) is basically completely lacking social ‘skills’, desires, etc, always avoiding people at all costs, is a completely sensor-tard and very prone to fantasy and ‘magical thinking’, completely ignores his/her feelings because everything needs to be fully logic, lacking empathy and etc. Some super exaggerated stereotypes are from this stage as well (this is a good stage to create type memes as well lol). Types (these are the 16 types):
– Ne-f (Extraverted Intuitive type with auxiliary feeling)
– Ne-t
– Ni-f
– Ni-t
– Se-t
– Se-f
– Si-t
– Si-f
– Te-n
– Te-s
– Ti-n
– Ti-s
– Fe-n
– Fe-s
– Fi-n
– Fi-s
Things to observe:
– The moderate E or moderate I applies on the primary function and in general terms, but not on the other functions, including in terms of healthyness. So, for example, a N function with a very high preference for E generates an intuitive function that has a very rigid E attitude, becoming one sided in terms of its E/I attitude. An ‘introverted’ secondary function does not compensates this.
– Jung believes that all people are supposed to develop and have a sort of innate preference, so there is some implicit notion that people should ‘differentiated their secondary function’, their primary function, etc… and some people switch the word ‘differentiated’ for ‘development’. However, undifferentiation does NOT actually means lack of development. A person with an undifferentiated function does not necessarily have an “undeveloped function” or a function that is ‘struggling development’, even inside Jung typology where there is the implicit (and wrong) notion that preferences equal skills. The person simply does have either N/S functions (if primary T or F) or T/F functions (if primary S or N) mixed, reactive and adaptive, or in other words, undifferentiated.
– Jung believes that no one is in-born undifferentiated and no one has innate undifferentiated, in every terms, meaning that everyone is supposed to differentiate until stage 4, and this is actually a Personality Development (not skill development, that is an entirely different thing). Jung thinks that the undifferentiated type is primitive. However, besides Jung’s view, nothing else proves or point that this is actual true. I did evaluate this through the enneagram and reading about cognitive flexibility and flexibility in psychology and in no way the undifferentiated type is primitive, but rather primitive conditions (aka having to survive on the forest) generates the undifferentiated type. And it seems that this notion of the primitiveness and retard development of the undifferentiated type should be false when environment conditions are controlled, and some people likely does have an innate lack of preference, even though a person that fully lacks preferences should be rare or very rare.
Cognitive function tests
Actually, the way Jung is seem here is different than any test you see around the web. I plan to create at least a quotev quiz in a few weeks. However, we can still sort of adapt the “traditional cognitive function test” format, of course that there will be some bias I may talk about on the notes.
Jung was not much worried about tests, so this method is actually bizarre to the tests and would need a test specifically designed for it – basically, you have an E/I general counter in one side to evaluate the attitude type department, and then you basically evaluate 4 function types (the intuitive type, the sensation type, the thinking type, the feeler type), and after you cross both you got one of the 8 types of cognitive functions – so Schiller has an Introvert attitude with a Thinking function, and that makes him an Introverted Thinking type, which goes to the Ti-dom description. The next two steps, that Jung indirectly already evaluated for Schiller, is to determine which function is the auxiliary one, and to determinate if the first function and its pair are high/not high, intense/not intense, short/long. This is basically the core Jung typing method and the Jung’s way of interpretation for the main type (the 8 main types) – I will explain these two next steps better later.
It is possible to improvise this method to the cognitive function tests we know, even though that might be a little bit problematic – and there is a reason for that that I will mention later. Basically, this:
Attitude type (Extraverted or Introverted):
E/I: (1) Se+Ne+Te+Fe <=> (2) Fi+Ti+Si+Ni
If (1) side is higher than (2) (E functions>I functions), then you are an extravert, the opposite is introvert, and if it is too much on the middle then you are undifferentiated.
Function-type (N, S, F, T):
Intuition: Ne+Ni
Sensing: Se+Si
Thinking: Te+Ti
Feeling: Fe+Fi
Whichever those wins determinate if you are an N, S, T or F function type.
The problem of this improvisation is that in some cases the dominant function of this method and the one that the tests says won’t match. For example, you might get an introverted type, thinking might be the strongest, yet the person highest score is not Ti, but Ni instead (or Ne or other function). This happens actually because the tests does one assumption that is a conceptual error – I will get to that soon.
More about the undifferentiated type
There is one general thing on typology that is generally overlooked and partially with purpose. Jung himself is a highly critical of environments that gets in the way of the individual – communities that forces people to become undifferentiated types. However, when you expand typology by crossing Enneagram, Big 5 and MBTI, I did noticed that some types can cause undifferentiation in other people, and that is something very real and present: Some types of people does make and demand others to be undifferentiated. I don’t pretend to really write anything about it in short term except by this, but, traitly speaking, these traits: Low tolerance of diversity, high Extraversion, lack of effective empathy and authoritarian & tyrannical tendencies, are the traits related to a type that does cause undifferentiation on other people, or, basically, it is a type that oppress the individuality of other people. I already know which MBTI and Enneagram combo is closest to these traits (actually, I firstly investigated the combos and just came up with these traits now so I don’t need to say which combo is), made an evaluation of the occurrence of this combo and countries, and, in fact, the more a country has this type, lower the IQ is. Part of these traits relates to the Narcissistic Personality Disorder, and we speak of a specific kind of Narcissism (that is far from being actually rare and can be found in different degrees) where a person have a notion that he/she is a God and that everyone else should be made by her/his own image, basically forcing people to behave and be on their image instead of their own individuality, and they may force others to be a like them, giving rise to an introverted type that mirrors them in all traits except on E/I, by basically having a type that is alike them except on mainly on self-esteem and assertiveness, and on these traits Introversion and Neuroticism gravitates. The Enneagram 6 chapter has an actual example of this:
“I had a very powerful, controlling, somewhat dazzling mother. She was capable of withdrawing her love at a moment’s notice, angrily, and often inexplicably. It was a highly conditional love, and depended above all on absolute loyalty—to her values, beliefs, and judgments, no matter how erratic and off the wall they might be. I often felt that it was my role to confront my mother—to fight for my own survival.
The problem was that my approach was negative: I resisted her and survived but never felt confident that I had prevailed. It was never going to be possible to both win the approval of others (most notably my mother) while also maintaining my independence and developing my own sense of self.”
Typology is not really immune to the things related to undifferentiation – Jung is actually aware of that. Jung considers the Extravert types to be less differentiated than the introverted types. In my own stats, I did connections of Jung typology and indirectly from dichotomy conversion, and I had found that there is a weak correlation between Introversion and differentiation (differentiation in this context mean the standard deviation of cognitive functions): People who are introverts have an actual tendency to be more differentiated than extraverts. I had also found that in Myers J (accessed indirectly by cognitive functions), and in general Perceivers are slightly more differentiated than Js.
Beyond this factor, I also need to observe: Jung did consider the undifferentiated type (undifferentiation ) more archaic, where on MBTI there is also this notion that you should “develop your preferences”, something like that. However, the enneagram, specially on enneagram 9, does have a notion of “balance” and there are philosophies related to the “balance of things”. So, for some, undifferentiation could just means balance – and they could have even a high emotional stability, peace of mind, etc… So, it is completely true that Jung and MBTI paints the undifferentiated type as a bad type, and I say that they might be right in some cases where extreme cases put the person on this state, but for some other people, there is the possibility of just a “natural balance”. It is a possibility, so I’m not sure, and what I question is the “archaism” of the undifferentiated type. Another notion in Jung and Myers is that all people have natural preferences, I ask myself: Really? Couldn’t be there people who are just naturally ambiverts or does not have a preference for a secondary function naturally? I do question them on these issues.
Jung J/P explained, why it is not much relevant and Myers J/P
You are a Jung J if your primary function is F or T. You are a Jung P if your primary function is N or S. And yes, that corresponds to socionic J/P and it is actually as simple as that, it is just that your sources try to marry it with MBTI and for that the explanation gets more complicated.
However, in Jung, when a Jung P function rises as a primary function, the other Jung P function is suppressed in the same proportion (by the cog. Func. Tests, about the same proportion for most of people). That means that in the general picture, F+T=N+S for everyone, or that in the general picture, the sum of the person’s rational function and irrational will be equal. This is why Jung J/P does not work well as a dichotomy, since most people are supposed to be very balanced on it. This is likely why that Myers had to change it entirely.
Myers J/P got little to do with Jung J/P in the end. Jung J/P got very few to do with being organized or not, with being scheduled or unplanned, systematic or casual, spontaneous and open ended or planful, etc… As I measured indirectly on the cog. Function tests, the correlations are zero or weak. I do recognize that Myers J/P got traits that are “sort of external”, and, although there is not a straight stats to this, it is likely that there is some relation for extraverts while zero for introverts, but I am sure there is no straight conversion. So there is not really an actual completely conversion as socionics claims, where every INTJ in Jung is a INTP in MBTI – every “INTJ in Jung” (there is actually no “INTJ” as a 4 letter-code in Jung) (that is basically a Ti-dom with auxiliary intuition) can be either INTP or INTJ on MBTI. Although this might looks awkward, it actually makes a lot of sense once you get it, and this makes me go to another subject: The 8 types description over the internet.
Socionics quick note
The J/P notation of socionics is equal to the Jung typology, however socionics uses 8 “cognitive functions” rather than 4 functions. I was suggested to even draw a Socionics conversion here, decided to do so and then had changed my mind because the Socionics types have 8 cognitive function stacks, so creating a direct bridge to Socionics could be misleading, specially because of the Socionics also has groups, i.e. they categorize types, based on an 8 cognitive function stack, even though there is connection no doubt. The principal and inferior functions matches, so for example, SEE and SLE are both Se types (and have inferior Ni), as the internet sources does matches as well, and the theory properly presented here matches on the principal and inferior function on both socionics and “common internet sources” (sources that uses Grant Stack) (although Jung never ever wrote a direct hint to the orientation of the inferior function, or at least I did not spot any, it is imminent to be the opposite of the principal one). But, out of that, they are different, and I think that a lot of stuff on Socionics are misread of Jung because they contradict original Jung and have “counter-evidence” against them “data” (like in James Reynierse article, “The Case Against Type Dynamics”).
The 8 types “internet” descriptions bias
All over the internet, for now we got very popular websites that does the explanation of the 8 main types, that are presented as if they were cognitive functions. Most people know the 8 main types from Jung by these sites and not by the original source of Jung. As I said on the last item, the MBTI J/P and Jung J/P cannot be really converted. These websites, due to their theory, forces these conversion, and by that a lot of them does modify their explanations to fit the forced conversion. So, for example, when explaining Ni some will say that Ni will focus on a single objective in the future and the Ni type will pursue this single vision of them, with focus and discipline. However, this is not Jung Ni type at all; It is rather just a MBTI xNxJ type. Ni on a lot of sites description does posses some of J traits that, at least in very theory, don’t exist in original Jung – worst thing is, even I when writing about it still have this bias. So, just as a clearer example, I will jump quickly to Big 5: On Big 5, there is a E/I notion and Openness to Experience is reasonably close to the function Intuition, while Conscientiousness is somewhat close of Myers J/P. So, here are a description of an approximation of the Ne type on Jung (which is a type with High Extraversion and High Openness to Experience on Big 5) versus an approximate description of a NP (which is High Openness and Low Conscientiousness), descriptions from here:
FANCIFUL/IMAGINATIVE TYPE (Low C, High O) [xNxP approximation]
Fanciful/Imaginative Types are unconventional nonconformists who pride themselves on being different from others. They are not so much openly antisocial and disruptive in their behavior as they are fanciful, impractical, and unconcerned about the general welfare of others. They are described by others as complex, imaginative, and critical.
DEBONAIR TYPE (High E, High O) [Ne type approximation]
Debonair Types are intelligent extraverts. In their worldliness they can be quite witty and charming. They have a flair for the dramatic, and can be histrionic and theatrical. People are naturally attracted to debonair types, but if a debonair type dislikes somebody, he or she can swiftly cut that person to the quick. Therefore, this type is generally described with positive terms such as enterprising, eloquent, forward-looking, confident, and sexy, but can also be described as critical, candid, and intense.
So, yeah, these are different conceptions, so Ne type does not really equal NP. So, for example, a INTP can be either a Ti-dom or a Ni-dom, yet since people hold a concept biased through Ni=NJ, they will have a hard time picturing a INTP Ni-dom, yet INTP can be either a Ti-dom or a Ni-dom.
For the Ni big 5 approximation, for some reason, there were some few Conscientiousness but also thinking traits as well. Even though, as I said, conceptually Ni does not have much to do with MBTI J.
I do know that there would be some demand for me or someone to write a more clearer description of each 8 Jung type without the MBTI J/P interference; For me that is a little bit hard, I do find that myself I do still have that bias on my thinking, it is hard to take it out.
About the “evidence against Jung functions”
It is a very good idea to wrote about the articles that disproves the functions.
I really do not have access to all of them, however from the few of them that I did had a look, all of them seems to use 8 functions, even calling them “cognitive functions” sometimes, and some of them use an 8 function stack, so, basically, these articles did NOT disprove Jungian functions because they are not even testing the Jungian functions in the first place, since there are 4 Jungian functions, not 8. This applies entirely to the James Reynierse article (in “The Case Against Type Dynamics”), since he used 8 functions, not 4.
About Oddly developed resume against the functions, here:
http://www.oddlydevelopedtypes.com/content/cognitive-functions-and-type-dynamics-failed-theory
Although I did not accessed the articles that did come that text, they are all likely using 8 functions, Oddly Developed Types seems to think that Jung did used the term ‘cognitive’ but not only these issues; First, I do wonder what dynamic a static stack of functions have. But, well, there is also the MBTI assumption where one assumes that, for example, INTP is a Thinking dominant type, while I had explained that MBTI INTP can be either a Thinking dominant or Intuitive dominant in Jung typology, so the research looking for evidence that INTP is a Thinking-dominant type with words-choice or looking for a T>N pattern for INTP, is pretty much not going to find any of these – and I had explained why already. A lot of things shown there actually even aids my point, but this is perhaps the most golden one: “The fact that the four letter code for a type is empirically solid does not imply that cognitive function theory is also empirically solid.” That is true, however if we replace “cognitive function” by “Jung functions” (that are N/S/T/F), I could actually say that the four letter code (actually, a three letter code, we have to remove J/P) for a type is as empirically solid as Jung functions combined with attitude type are solid, because they are very similar. For example, a Thinking type with auxiliary intuition is supposed to have a T>N>S>F stack; However, I did find cases on converted results from cognitive function tests to a Jung function format where we had cases that were T>F>N>S, which were a case where the stack failed. Well, in this case, the Jung phrase that “Thinking causes a repression of Feeling, because both are opposites in nature” (ok, Jung did not said that on that words, but he said something of the same meaning) did failed, because the premise that Thinking and Feeling would repulse each other fail. This kind of failure actually does affect the MBTI, since the MBTI dichotomy Thinking vs Feeling work exactly with the same premise. But that would not be a self-report fault? Not actually. There is this concept that I had drawn in different posts: In typology there are the absolute opposite and the negative correlated opposites. For example, we can relate I to silent and E to talkative, and these are opposites, since you cannot have a “silent talkative” person, that would be a paradox, so a person saying “I am talkative” -> Completely agree, “I am silent” -> Completely agree, is making a self-report mistake and is lying on the test. However, characteristics like logic vs empathetic are not absolute opposites: You can have a logical empathetic person, however these traits are negative correlated so you are unlikely to find an “empathetic logician” however that is not impossible, and that is a source for errors on the stacks I had drawn. So, a T>F>N>S kind of failure where both Thinking and Feeling are high is actually a failure for a MBTI premise as well, even if MBTI dichotomy frame can actually hide this weakness under the carpet by programming all T questions to score negative for F and vice versa or by simply merging T and F in the same score line. So, just to end my point, there is in fact “no evidence” for what I had wrote here directly because the whole MBTI does make the evidence on it’s own for here, because, in fact, this proper interpretation and MBTI have their differences but share a lot of common premises (by the way, because this is the original MBTI source). It would be interesting to see articles analyzing this point of view even though I still ask myself what would be understood as “evidence” for this.
MBTI versus Jung typology
I wrote this earlier but just in case and to clarify: These are different.
Jung typology does NOT have a 4 letter code, so, for instance, there is no INFP in Jung typology, what there is is a Fi type with auxiliary intuition (Fi-n) (and as I said on the last note, INFP can be both a Ni-f or a Fi-n; And Fi-n can be either INFP or INFJ). On MBTI, you evaluate personality in 4 separate dimensions: E vs I, N vs S, F vs T, P vs J. There is no notion of a dominant function on MBTI, the MBTI is indifferent to which dominant function you have.
However, one might think: But the equivalent of a Fi-n on MBTI should be simply INFx, right? Well, first, MBTI INFx is not sensible to a dominant function, for a Fi-n type, F>N is a must, while for a INF can be F>N or N>F. Second thing, even if we were to short this conversion to Fi and say “would not Fi and IXFX (supposing the preference for Feeling is higher than the N/S one) equivalent?” My answer is yes and no.
Yes because IXFX and Fi type both means a cross between feeling and introversion. However, the E/I concepts of MBTI are very social focused: So a IXFX type might be, in a very superficial-quick description for the sake of the example explaining the concept, would be a shy person that has values, while the Fi type means a person who is very guarded and cautioned about their feelings, which the feelings are intense. So the no answer comes because there is this difference on the descriptions, that happens because Jung E/I is not social focused and instead is very wide, while the MBTI facets are mostly focused on how social someone is or not. For example, Jung presents things like external/internal orientation (which on MBTI seems to almost disappears because there is a N/S relationship with this), notions such as being cautioned (on the I side) versus being reckless (on the E side) and goes on. Jung E/I, at least in my own opinion, is deeper and wider than the E/I from MBTI even if it have its statistical flaws and some stuff needs to be moved, however this overly focus on MBTI E/I into just being social or not social, basically making E/I only people focused, really takes some depth out. Here it is a converter and acronyms for each of the 31 types I had drawn earlier – remember that, if somebody has undifferentiated functions or undifferentiated attitude type (E/I), then the person will very likely get different MBTI test results.
Typology Triad 