Personality Cafe banner

What is my MBTI? Please help

843 Views 29 Replies 5 Participants Last post by  JonathanKieth
My result:


Hey guys, based on this does anyone knows what's my type?
See less See more
  • Like
Reactions: 1
1 - 10 of 30 Posts
Ooh... what's that? I have learned a bit about Cognitive Functions. And I have never seen such a combination before...
I will let Jonathan Kieth speak for themselves, but what I believe they are trying to say is those results appear to be of someone currently in a loop if you buy into the theory. I am not a fan of the theory since it entails a person vacillating between dominant and tertiary function equally, which runs counter to Jung's principle that:
This absolute sovereignty always belongs, empirically, to one function alone, and can belong only to one function, since the equally independent intervention of another function would necessarily yield a different orientation, which would at least partially contradict the first. But, since it is a vital condition for the conscious adaptation-process that constantly clear and unambiguous aims should be in evidence, the presence of a second function of equivalent power is naturally forbidden.
The results you show pretty much confirms my thoughts when it is claimed we go into a loop. We are simply overusing our attitude (i.e. E or I) or put another way, our auxiliary function is not working sufficiently to balance our dominant function.

Where I say this confirms my thoughts is although the loop theory is popular, I have yet to see a good example of how a certain type may appear during the flare-up. I know for me personally, when I am over introverting, I can run the gamut of Ti-Ni-Si and Fi (not necessarily in a good way). Simply put I get into my head and have to force myself to use my Se to come out of it.
  • Like
Reactions: 1
Hmm, I think that your usage of Jung's principle should not be based on the assumption that there is a dominant, aux, tertiary, as that would be a mix of two different systems. Carl Jung himself did not actually say that functions should be arranged as FeSiNeTi.

The quote that you provided from his book actually refers to him saying that the functions cannot be paired as FeTe or FeTi or FiTe, whereby Feeling and Thinking as opposites cannot be first and second, similarly with S and N functions.

Here's his quote for a slightly fuller context:
But to conclude that section, he does say:
For all the types appearing in practice, the principle holds good that besides the conscious main function there is also a relatively unconscious, auxiliary function which is in every respect different from the nature of the main function. From these combinations well-known pictures arise, the practical intellect for instance paired with sensation, the speculative intellect breaking through with intuition, the artistic intuition which selects. and presents its images by means of feeling judgment, the philosophical intuition which, in league with a vigorous intellect, translates its vision into the sphere of comprehensible thought, and so forth.

A grouping of the unconscious functions also takes place in accordance with the relationship of the conscious functions. Thus, for instance, an unconscious intuitive feeling attitude may correspond with a conscious practical intellect, whereby the function of feeling suffers a relatively stronger inhibition than intuition.
Jung did not go into a great deal about a lot of what we now understand regarding typology. Those that studied under him, or were known as experts in the field of Jungian psychology coined many of those phrases. The first time I read about stacking was in John Beebe's 8- Model theory. I have no qualm on Dr. Beebe knowing that branch of psychology.

It wasn't my intent to derail the discussion by bringing up the loop theory. In fact I only referenced to the auxiliary section to state, the tertiary function does not have the stand alone power to create such a scenario with the dominant function which has complete sovereignty. My point is based actually on what Jung says at the beginning of the chapter when referring to extraversion and introversion. If that is what we first see in a child (regardless of connecting a function to it, then I surmise we can revert back to using extraversion/introversion using all functions related to the respective attitude.
See less See more
Curious about the notion that one may have two functions with the same attitude at the dominant/auxiliary level. Is it being suggested that we are incapable of using functions in tandem or that we use one function at a time? The laws of physics must be considered here in being able to occupy the same space in time, in that we can't extravert/introvert two functions simultaneously.

On the other hand, am I understanding by implying being able to EEII or IIEE, and still assuming that we can extravert and introvert functions simultaneously, that a person may be able to use in tandem their dominant-tertiary, dominant-inferior, auxiliary-tertiary or auxiliary-inferior equally? In that case that person would not have one personality, but 4.
  • Like
Reactions: 2
I think that's the misconception here—that functions of the same attitude are unable to operate in tandem. I understand that Grant's Function Stack posits that functions must be arranged as EIEI or IEIE, but that's not really proven though, is it?

Let's look at it this way. Although definitions might differ from system to system, Te is generally defined as a function that focuses on making decisions through objective logic, while Si is generally defined as a function that focuses on subjective personal experiences. And yes, they can work in tandem.

But if Se is just defined as a function that focuses objective external experience, then why can't it work in tandem with Te too?

The point here being, there's no solid and substantial reasoning as to why functions of the same attitude cannot work hand in hand together, except for the laws of physics, which I don't think relates or justifies anything in the topic of personality.
Ummm as indicated from his quote I posted in #7, I am pretty sure when Jung says, "For all the types appearing in practice, the principle holds good that besides the conscious main function there is also a relatively unconscious, auxiliary function which is in every respect different from the nature of the main function." , he is meaning not only does the auxiliary function have to be a perceiving one if the conscious or dominating function is a judging one and vice-versa, but it also has to have a different orientation. Are you reading that differently?
That's an interesting point. However, Jung did not explicitly state that the functions had to be opposites in terms of introversion and extraversion; he only said that they were total opposites. Hence, I wouldn't definitely conclude that Jung intended exactly what you've mentioned, though I understand where you're coming from.
But that is exactly what the phrase "in every respect" means...., totally, wholly, absolutely, alone, etc. He covers three subjects in the chapter, the orientation of the attitude (E/I), the functions (J/P) and the conscious/unconscious. Jung could have easily said, with exception to the orientation of the attitude, this is what I think. Instead he says "in every respect".

Jung also does not say that for all the types appearing in theory. Instead he says for all types appearing "in practice", which literally means "in reality". I agreed with you earlier that sometime he may imply something that the reader can interpret in different ways, but in this case he was quite explicit.

There is a page on the varied function order found on Wiki that covers most models. If there is a model out there that covers how the dominant and auxiliary can have the same orientation of attitude, I would be interested in reading about it.
Ah yes, that was the same belief I held at first. But after falling into the rabbit hole of this whole issue, I am convinced that Jung was misinterpreted.

In fact, Jung was mistranslated by the English version of Psychological Types. And one of these major mistranslations can be found within the passage you were referring to:

You can read more about it from this source:

Furthermore, I would like highlight the work of Reckful, who I think does a way better job than me at explaining this matter. It's worth the read:
Thanks for the information. I only became aware last week when listening to an interview by John Beebe that it was Isabella Myers-Briggs who pointed out the statement in question. In only a way that Beebe could describe, he acknowledged that when Myers-Briggs brought this to the Jungian community’s attention, there was an uproar for the fact that a layman with not psychological credentials would notice something so obvious. Beebe says that nevertheless, the majority of the Jungian community started looking at cognitive functions in a different light and building their theories off of Myers-Briggs discovery.

That brings me to today, and what you are presenting. To make sure I understand what this person is alluding to, they are saying that the dominant function is not the only conscious function, and that the auxiliary function is also conscious? Didn’t need him to tell me something I discovered in my own self journey a decade before he wrote that post. My Se is as conscious as my Ti, but just not its equal.

Where I have a problem with this guy is claiming Jung to have said the dominant and auxiliary is different not opposite, not based on what Jung said but what he did not say. The author of the blog does not discount that Jung still uses the phrase “ different in every respect”. They seem to be saying that since Jung does not specifically use extravert/introvert in his instructions, then Myers-Briggs misinterpreted Jung.

As stated previously, Jung focused on three subjects in the whole chapter. This guy is arguing that if he meant to add the orientation of the attitude to the mix, then he would have stated it. Why would it be necessary to be redundant with the statement since Jung made it clear the functions are "different in every respect”? This person sounds as bad as Keirsey and Myers-Briggs in attempting to claim what Jung meant by pointing out what he did not need to say. What does “which is in every respect different from the nature of the main function" if not opposite?

I am no fan of Keirsey or Myers-Briggs' work. In fact reading "Please Understand Me II" and "Gifts Differing" frustrated me so, to where I decided to go straight to the source to understand the subject. Yes Jung's work takes patience and re-reading, but it was worth it. The author of the blog seems to be trying to make a name for himself on discrediting someone's work, but saying nothing of importance to change what Jung said.
See less See more
  • Like
Reactions: 1
To be frank, when I said I use my auxiliary function in a conscious way, I could be wrong. If I spoke with a Jungian psychologist, they may agree that the descriptions I give of using Se is in a conscious manner. Or they may say uh no what I am describing is not the use of a conscious anything, instead I have driven the same road in my daily commute, cut my lawn the same way or cooked certain dishes so many times over the years, that I am on autopilot and not conscious but simply going through the motions.

But consciousness or unconsciousness is not the reason for this extended discussion. First, other than this guy proposing that there was a mistranslation of Jung's work, why isn't this something that the Jungian community, or for that matter Jungian enthusiasts agreeing to? It's one mans opinion with a few followers. Secondly, the error of this guys comments remain that Jung did not point out specifically in his conclusions to exclude extravert/introvert. Instead he says well since he did not specifically say it, then he didn't mean it. Here is an analogy based on what this guy and his handful of followers may consider. This guy and a few of you are in a car driving down the highway, when you see a sign that says "Road Out Ahead". This guy says well it doesn't say specifically we can't take the passage, so keeps driving only to go off a hundred foot cliff. To use your metaphor for a previous post, you just went from the proverbial rabbit hole to perishing in a sink hole in reading into something that should be common sense.

To conclude, I copied and pasted the passage used by the blogger into google translate because .....well I am an ISTP type so skeptical by nature. This is the result:
The principle that applies to all practically occurring types is that, in addition to the conscious main function, they also have a relatively conscious, auxiliary function which differs in every respect from the essence of the main function.
To be honest, I like this translation even better, but it begs the question of is there a reason that Jung would distinguish that the dominant is conscious whereas the auxiliary function is "relatively conscious", but fail to mention extraversion/introversion if they were to be be excluded as well? Instead he says "which differs in every respect from the essence of the main function". If he is distinguishing between conscious/unconscious and extraversion/introversion, then why on earth would he have to use the phrase "which differs in every respect" since at that point he would only be now speaking of whether the functions can both be judging or perceiving, which he had already indicated could not. Again, common sense.
See less See more
Or maybe he thought his readers caught on in his very first sentence of his intro explaining how he was breaking down the entire chapter by describing the attitude, in addition to describing the function and concluding with a description both used together. By the time he begin discussing how the principle and auxiliary work together, it would seem quite evident he was referring to the function and attitude working together. But maybe it was not as evident to some.
The point is he says:
In the following pages I shall attempt a general description of the types, and my first concern must be with the two general types I have termed introverted and extraverted. But, in addition, I shall also try to give a certain characterization of those special types whose particularity is due to the fact that his most differentiated function plays the principal role in an individual's adaptation or orientation to life. The former I would term general attitude types, since they are distinguished by the direction of general interest or libido movement, while the latter I would call function-types.
Seems quite clear to most that he broke the sections down by extraversion and introversion, where he gave a general description of judging and perceiving by itself, followed by what he refers to as "special types whose particularity is due to the fact that his most differentiated function plays the principal role in and individual's adaptation", which he refers to as function-types. He could not have made it more clear, at least to most readers.
I am quite sure some took the comment, "He considered the functional and attitudinal traits as different topics" to mean he was not speaking of the attitude and function together. Not sure why you are referencing to Myers-Briggs in your comments.
1 - 10 of 30 Posts