Personality Cafe banner

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
381 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Now although communicating the functions through MBTI makes the language easier, it is not necessarily accurate. I've been thinking about this lately, because MBTI is copyrighted and not meant to be intertwined with Carl Jung's, even though it comes from his theories. This may not seem important, but there's definitely a distinction. Even though MBTI may seem like a quick and easy way to communicate the functions, is it what Carl Jung intended?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
296 Posts
Carl Jung simply had this idea about several types; It's not backed with scientific researches or facts. The guy was big on the inconscious.
He typed himself as ISTP in his young age and INTP in his later years, it's not how MBTI is supposed to work so It's not completely related to MBTI which is basically a brand at this point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,112 Posts
It's gotten pretty messy. Jung had the foundations of the theory, but was very loose on definitions and such, making it great for philosophy but not for any practical use.
MBTI has done a lot to straighten the theory out and let everyone know about it, but the foundation is all about the money, while the theory itself is just taken for granted without any real research going into it from them.

These days everyone has their pet theories and it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. I'm guessing there's some truth in type theory but it will prove to be a little more complicated than the current theories predict. At the very least it's useful in everyday life, which is what most people are getting out of it.

In the end, for personal use it doesn't really matter which theory you use. They all for the same basic framework and if you just want to understand why your neighbor does his lawn a certain way while you do it another way, the theory is fine for that use. For use in science, we need a lot more than that. Dario Nardi has done a bit, but it's far from enough to build a good theory on. I'm sure we need lots of labs all doing research into the neuroscience of typology if we're going to be getting anywhere fast.
Otherwise, just use it for personal stuff. It works fine for that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
Now although communicating the functions through MBTI makes the language easier, it is not necessarily accurate. ... Even though MBTI may seem like a quick and easy way to communicate the functions, is it what Carl Jung intended?
Carl Jung — mystical streak notwithstanding — was a believer in using scientific methods to the extent possible, and Isabel Myers took Psychological Types and devoted a substantial chunk of her life to putting its typological concepts to the test in accordance with the psychometric standards applicable to the science of personality. Myers adjusted Jung's categories and concepts so that they better fit the data she'd gathered from thousands of subjects, and by the end of the 1950s, she had a typology (and an instrument) that was respectably tapping into four of the Big Five personality dimensions — long before there really was a Big Five. And twin studies have since shown that identical twins raised in separate households are substantially more likely to match on those dimensions than genetically unrelated pairs, which is further (strong) confirmation that the MBTI dichotomies correspond to real, relatively hard-wired underlying dimensions of personality. They're a long way from being simply theoretical — or pseudoscientific — categories with no respectable evidence behind them.

McCrae and Costa are the leading Big Five psychologists, and they've studied both Jung and the MBTI, and noted — correctly — that Jung's typology erred in lumping various psychological characteristics together that decades of studies have shown are not significantly correlated. By contrast, after Myers was finished adjusting Jung's system to fit the data, she had a modified version whose dichotomies passed muster by the relevant scientific standards. As McCrae and Costa explain:

Jung's descriptions of what might be considered superficial but objectively observable characteristics often include traits that do not empirically covary. Jung described extraverts as "open, sociable, jovial, or at least friendly and approachable characters," but also as morally conventional and tough-minded in James's sense. Decades of research on the dimension of extraversion show that these attributes simply do not cohere in a single factor. ...

Faced with these difficulties, Myers and Briggs created an instrument by elaborating on the most easily assessed and distinctive traits suggested by Jung's writings and their own observations of individuals they considered exemplars of different types and by relying heavily on traditional psychometric procedures (principally item-scale correlations). Their work produced a set of internally consistent and relatively uncorrelated indices.​

As further discussed in this post, Jung included what's arguably the lion's share of the modern conception of S/N (the concrete/abstract duality) in his very broad notion of what E/I involved. But Myers discovered that there are abstract extraverts (ENs) and concrete introverts (ISs), and that there's no significant correlation between Myers' (statistically supportable) versions of E/I and S/N. Jung said extraverts tend to subscribe to the mainstream cultural views of their time, while introverts tend to reject mainstream values in favor of their own individualistic choices. But Myers discovered that a typical ISTJ is significantly more likely to be a traditionalist than a typical (more independent-minded) ENTP. Jung said an extravert likes change and "discovers himself in the fluctuating and changeable," while an introvert resists change and identifies with the "changeless and eternal." But Myers discovered that it was the S/N and J/P dimensions that primarily influenced someone's attitude toward change, rather than whether they were introverted or extraverted.

And so on. The appropriate way to view the Myers-Briggs typology is not as some kind of simplified (and more "testable") implementation of Jung's original typology. Instead, it's fairer to say that the Myers-Briggs typology is basically where Jung's typology ended up after it was very substantially modified — not to mention expanded — to fit the evidence.

Jung broke with Freud in large part because he thought Freud wanted him (and others) to treat Freud's theories as a kind of religion, rather than having an appropriately sceptical and open-minded scientific attitude toward them. There's nothing wrong with reading Psychological Types if you're interested, and I've read it more than once myself. But you should realize that, although Jung had a lot of insightful things to say about various two-kinds-of-people-in-the-world characteristics that have proven to be psychometrically respectable and have been incorporated into the MBTI, there's a lot that Jung got wrong, too. And if you read Psychological Types with an overly reverent attitude, then you're being non-Jungian in that respect, if you get my drift.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,196 Posts
He typed himself as ISTP in his young age
This isn't true. His "ISTP typing" existed before MBTI even existed. He typed himself as using Introverted Thinking first and Introverted Intuition second, which fits with his normal Introverted Thinking type (with auxiliary Intuition).

If you read his description of the Introverted Thinking type, it's way more similar to MBTI's INTJ, and having auxiliary Intuition just solidifies that.

I am glad that the OP made this thread. Jung's types are not MBTI types!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
296 Posts
This isn't true. His "ISTP typing" existed before MBTI even existed. He typed himself as using Introverted Thinking first and Introverted Intuition second, which fits with his normal Introverted Thinking type (with auxiliary Intuition).

If you read his description of the Introverted Thinking type, it's way more similar to MBTI's INTJ, and having auxiliary Intuition just solidifies that.

I am glad that the OP made this thread. Jung's types are not MBTI types!
https://www.idrlabs.com/articles/2012/02/jung-identified-himself-as-both-intp-and-istp/

i don't know I heavily relate to Ni too.
If it was "possible" I would put Ti and Ni in my hypothetical stacking.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
374 Posts
And so on. The appropriate way to view the Myers-Briggs typology is not as some kind of simplified (and more "testable") implementation of Jung's original typology. Instead, it's fairer to say that the Myers-Briggs typology is basically where Jung's typology ended up after it was very substantially modified — not to mention expanded — to fit the evidence.

Jung broke with Freud in large part because he thought Freud wanted him (and others) to treat Freud's theories as a kind of religion, rather than having an appropriately sceptical and open-minded scientific attitude toward them. There's nothing wrong with reading Psychological Types if you're interested, and I've read it more than once myself. But you should realize that, although Jung had a lot of insightful things to say about various two-kinds-of-people-in-the-world characteristics that have proven to be psychometrically respectable and have been incorporated into the MBTI, there's a lot that Jung got wrong, too. And if you read Psychological Types with an overly reverent attitude, then you're being non-Jungian in that respect, if you get my drift.
Well said!

I do believe we have found at least some degree of concrete knowledge in the regard of N vs S and E vs I.
I mean, when I meet a "sensor" and when I meet an "intuitive", the difference is unmistakeable. They show the usual symptoms that correspond the each type, they haven't been out of place (for example, meeting an Ne dominant who is a Te-aux or a Ti dominant who is Ni aux).
I also really don't believe there's such thing as an ambivert. Being social or socially anxious is not the same as being introverted and extroverted, and again, each one displays the corresponding traits of each type.

It's true, at the neurological level, we have a lot to discover. Once you get to see how the brain works, you realize some of the types probably should not even exist (but that's VERY dangerous territory to tread into publicly at this point).
But humans are, 100% (and also in my opinion) categorizable. You can choose better patterns, but in the end, you fall in somewhere as some kind of type that will be repeated somewhere else. We just haven't developed the theory to that extend.
MBTI has a bunch of holes, so does the freaking enneagram theory.
I think it's our responsibility as learners of it to fill in the gaps and figure this stuff out.
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top