'pure' Jungian types

[IndigoSensor]

... *headdesk* I swear you can't say anything about MBTI without someone getting their undies in a bunch (I'm not yelling at you a200, I am enormously frusterated with MBTI atm because it got off its leash and I am trying to put it back). *points to user title*

 

[athenian200]

... *headdesk* I swear you can't say anything about MBTI without someone getting their undies in a bunch (I'm not yelling at you a200, I am not enormously frusterated with MBTI atm because it got off its leash and I am trying to put it back). *points to user title*

LOL! I just saw your user title. That explains a lot, and especially makes me laugh given the post you made earlier.

That totally explains why you're frustrated. MBTI has quite the tendency to go off on tangents and not work according to it's own rules. I was SO frustrated by that when I started studying it as well. These days, I just accept that there are multiple valid perspectives on many of the same topics.

I know how frustrating it is when people get too defensive of their own perspective, and you can't communicate. That happens a lot in the MBTI community. A lot of people create elaborate rules that accept some contradictions but not others, and call everyone else wrong with no evidence or true listening to argument.

The perspective that there are no pure types is valid in the sense of there being no pure types in the MBTI model, but not so in the sense of the Jungian theory it was based on. In other words, you would be correct in saying that MBTI as practiced doesn't support or allow for the possibility, and that one must dismiss it in order to fit into the model. That's why I call myself an INFJ rather than INTx or something. Because in MBTI terms, that's my best fit. That doesn't mean I might not be something else if you look at it from a different perspective than MBTI offers, however.

You wouldn't be correct in saying that MBTI's interpretation of Jungian theory is the only correct one, however, because that cannot be shown one way or the other, and many have good reasons for believing otherwise.

 

[KazeCraven]

@IndigoSensor: I think I see. In other words, you are saying that regardless of what functions we actually use to do so, everyone is going to have ways to 'stay true to oneself' (an Fi function)? I would agree with that.

Still, I want it explained as to WHY it is that being i>e>i>e is something we have to be, or that it makes us mentally balanced. Its kinda been taken for granted as true without being explained here.

The way I see it is that it has less to do with our preferences for functions and more to do with what we mean by an auxiliary function. For example,

Let's say you have Fi-dominant, and you handle the external world with Se, but you also have Ni. Since Fi is dominant, your primary inclination would be to reflect on what's important to you; however an Fi-type is an adaptive function (because it decides on the relative worth of whatever comes in). Ni, on the other hand, is a directive function b/c it has a vision of how you (or the world) should be. To take an example from the cognitive process test, Ni allows you to "Transform yourself by focusing inward on a specific way you foresee you will need to be". Now for the important part.

Se (and Ne for that matter) is also an adaptive function in that it hones in on relevant information in real-time as well as allow one to respond quickly to a change in the environment. Suddenly, however, we've just gotten to the issue that Se is actually allowing one to make rapid decisions! The reason for this is that Fi and Se (more generally, Ji and Pe) are two sides of the same coin. Se takes in information while Fi decides what to do with it, which shapes Se to change what it sees as 'relevant', and so on.

On the flip side, Ni and ...in this case Te are directive functions, meaning they have an agenda to push. Ni decides how things should be, while Te executes what should be done. Thus someone who has an Fi-dominant function will by default make use of a Pe function as auxiliary, because Ni as auxiliary cannot directly be subordinated to the function of Fi. At least, that's my interpretation; I suppose whatever Jung meant by a 'pure' type would be more clear if I knew what his response to my interpretation would be.

The tl;dr version is that the dominant function needs an opposite auxiliary to fulfill its own function.

 

[Gaze]

@IndigoSensor: I think I see. In other words, you are saying that regardless of what functions we actually use to do so, everyone is going to have ways to 'stay true to oneself' (an Fi function)? I would agree with that.



The way I see it is that it has less to do with our preferences for functions and more to do with what we mean by an auxiliary function. For example,

Let's say you have Fi-dominant, and you handle the external world with Se, but you also have Ni. Since Fi is dominant, your primary inclination would be to reflect on what's important to you; however an Fi-type is an adaptive function (because it decides on the relative worth of whatever comes in). Ni, on the other hand, is a directive function b/c it has a vision of how you (or the world) should be. To take an example from the cognitive process test, Ni allows you to "Transform yourself by focusing inward on a specific way you foresee you will need to be". Now for the important part.

Se (and Ne for that matter) is also an adaptive function in that it hones in on relevant information in real-time as well as allow one to respond quickly to a change in the environment. Suddenly, however, we've just gotten to the issue that Se is actually allowing one to make rapid decisions! The reason for this is that Fi and Se (more generally, Ji and Pe) are two sides of the same coin. Se takes in information while Fi decides what to do with it, which shapes Se to change what it sees as 'relevant', and so on.

On the flip side, Ni and ...in this case Te are directive functions, meaning they have an agenda to push. Ni decides how things should be, while Te executes what should be done. Thus someone who has an Fi-dominant function will by default make use of a Pe function as auxiliary, because Ni as auxiliary cannot directly be subordinated to the function of Fi. At least, that's my interpretation; I suppose whatever Jung meant by a 'pure' type would be more clear if I knew what his response to my interpretation would be.

The tl;dr version is that the dominant function needs an opposite auxiliary to fulfill its own function.

Good description. I see this in teaching on any given day. I use Se to process what's happening in the classroom, looking at everyone's faces, noticing behavioral patterns in any given moment throughout the class, use Fi to figure out what's going to work to help me achieve the teaching/learning goals for that session, use Ni+Se to process feedback i'm getting from everyone - interpreting the overal mood/tone/response. And i would add Ti in the mix, because without it, i couldn't identify if information presented or discussed is true/false, valid, invalid, etc. And then of course I use Te to advance the learning goals by trying to put everything in perspective so that learners can make sense of it and apply it to their assignments.

But i disagree with the description of Ni. I don't see Ni as directive. I think it identifies what's happening rather than describes what should be.

 

[Quinlan]

I find it kind of funny that you guys are trying to remove bias from your testing, MBTI is a measure of bias. All of the functions are valid there is no objective reason to prefer one over the other, the test is trying to measure that bias (it's a concious bias).

That's why capacity is such a red herring, capacity has nothing to do with MBTI. People want an ego boost and you can't get an ego boost unless capacity (better than, less than) is involved, that's why time and time again people talk about functions and preferences as if they're skills. If they include level of skill in the system then they can form a heirarchy (in which they usually place themselves near the top).

 

[Gaze]

. . . MBTI is a measure of bias. All of the functions are valid there is no objective reason to prefer one over the other, the test is trying to measure that bias (it's a concious bias).

That's why capacity is such a red herring, capacity has nothing to do with MBTI. People want an ego boost and you can't get an ego boost unless capacity (better than, less than) is involved, that's why time and time again people talk about functions and preferences as if they're skills. If they include level of skill in the system then they can form a heirarchy (in which they usually place themselves near the top).

Good point.

 

[KazeCraven]

@Res: I never really quite understood what people meant by Ni, but I view the introverted perception functions as what we know about the world rather than what we're seeing. Whether or not the 'interest' of Ni is to make use of what has stored or to inform what's other there seems to be of dispute between you and I. I don't make use of it (much?), as far as I can tell, so I don't know.

 

[arbygil]

I find it kind of funny that you guys are trying to remove bias from your testing, MBTI is a measure of bias. All of the functions are valid there is no objective reason to prefer one over the other, the test is trying to measure that bias (it's a concious bias).

That's why capacity is such a red herring, capacity has nothing to do with MBTI. People want an ego boost and you can't get an ego boost unless capacity (better than, less than) is involved, that's why time and time again people talk about functions and preferences as if they're skills. If they include level of skill in the system then they can form a heirarchy (in which they usually place themselves near the top).

Hee...but see, this is the problem of an INFJ, and you're getting to the crux of the matter. We need definite conclusions, and we need to be authentic. If we're biased, we're not authentic, which means we must be taking the test "wrong." We have to take the test until we get it "right" for ourselves...which is why an INFJ can go around and around in circles about if they're *really* an INFJ or not.

Because we could've cheated. We really feel like X. We were in a bad mood when we took the test. Etc. Even if we take the MBTI 100 million times and get the same results, there will always be 100 million infinitesimal variations that "could be" something that needs to be settled and fixed.

How scary is that?

 

[Gaze]

@Res: I never really quite understood what people meant by Ni, but I view the introverted perception functions as what we know about the world rather than what we're seeing. Whether or not the 'interest' of Ni is to make use of what has stored or to inform what's other there seems to be of dispute between you and I. I don't make use of it (much?), as far as I can tell, so I don't know.

Ni is not the easiest function to define. Ni has an interpretive function. It recognizes "what is" using various perceptive processes. It doesn't prescribe, but rather identifies/describes.

Any MBTI experts - feel free to correct me.

 

[jimtaylor]

I am not a pure type, I am definitely Ni>Fe. I am not so sure I am will to accept the idea of a pure type. Currently, I am really not sure what to make of all these MBTI theories. What I have held as the correct method for a long time has since died, but I am not letting that go because the new information I have emassed does not fit it even remotely, and something simply does not feel right about it at all.

Theory suggests that your type is going to make you have a domiant and auxaillary function that balence i and e, and the is no conceivable way for it to be any other way. So far the best way I can explain the difference is a person has a function capacity and a function preference.

Capaicty is what function order tests measure. I.E. The capaicty to which you can use a function. Of course a function test is measuring the external manifestations of what you do (not what you are). It's all stereotypes. As stereotypes are based on a origin of truth, function capacity is not moot. I would guess around 60% of the people that take function tests will get results that mirror their prefrence. There is a huge level of forer effect with it so its really hard to get an accurate capacity mesure, but it can be done over a long period of time. I have to point out. When you have a high capaicty for a shadow function. It is actually the result of you merging two main functions together, to mirror the effects of it. My Si often gets a high score, because it is the result of me merging Ti and Se in some strange way that takes far too long to explain. People will often disregard function tests because of this. At the same time though, its silly to think that ones personality is limited to just 1/2 of a set of possibillites.

Prefrence is the actual order emerging from a type. As an INFJ, my prefrence is Ni>Fe>Ti>Se and as is for every other INFJ on the planet. Your prefrence is how your actual mind functions, which is possible to extract in a test but is hard to do. You need to possess a really high level of unbais self awareness to pull it off. The other problem with tests is they often base internal processes by external mesures. They are related, but not fullproof. As such MBTI tests (which are prefrence tests), often end up measuring capacity, which does not give you your type. Thus; you get mistypes. Prefrence, again is how your mind actually thinks and processes. Which has external manifestations that are quite consistent, but really hard to read. The problem with that is not everyone is going to agree on what they see and no tests can analyze it. Perhaps a computer can at some point, and that would be very exciting to see.

Now, assuming that type is a prefrence, there indeed is no such thing as a "pure type", it's impossible. People that proclaim that their Ti is better then Fe and they are INFJ (i.e. Ni>Ti>(Fe)), is simply not true. It might emerge that way in a capaicty test, but again capaicty does not equal type. Very introverted INFJ's often think that Fe is too "Friendly" and feel defensive about it and thus don't broadcast it. They will then try to use Ti which is the inverse of Fe, to squelsh it. The thing is the purpose of using Ti to do that actually makes it harder to use Ti correctly. This is because Ti is spending all of it's effort at keeping Fe in check. That can be done right, but that can not occur until an INFJ actually gets their Fe rolling correctly and they feel safe with it. All types fit this pattern. You simply can not have a prefrence that goes Xi>Xi or Xe>Xe. The brain does not work that way. As such, you can't have a true pure type.

Again I am having a lot of internal conflict over this right now because I can't get it all to fit together into one thing and it is driving me mad. It's really hard to synthesize this all into one uniform thing because I am trying pull what I know from two diametrically opposed forces (both of which have truths, and falses to them). As such, I applogize if this sounds a little disjointed.

Yes that does make a lot more sense. I also feel like that a lot of the test questions are a matter of perspective as well. An example when I had a friend take the MBTI test;

him: This question says "I prefer to have my areas clean," does that mean I would like it to be clean or that it is always clean?

The tests I feel at times are too open to opinion and speculation. Perhaps if it was more of situational test where your functions acctually have to be put in us versus theoretical it would work better. I.E. have the test questions ask something like in a certain situation would you do ___ __ or ___. Of course you would have to figure out what type would answer what and that of course is up to opinion as well. I really just don't see how MBTI or any other personality theory can ever become concrete with our personalities/minds being so complicated. It's just far to complicated to be nailed down to one specific thing.