inconsistency in MBTI theory. This incompatibility sometimes (note sometimes) appears between Introvert types. As for Extrovert types - MBTI theory, Socionics and Jung seem fully compatible.
The reason for this is that when Myers was designing MBTI, she took Jungian typology as the basis for her project. According to Jung, people can be Extroverts (E) or Introverts (I), Thinking (T) or Feeling (F), Sensing (S) or Intuitive (N). So Jungian types ended up looking like this:
Extraverted Thinking type
Introverted Thinking type
Extraverted Feeling type
Introverted Feeling type
Extraverted Sensing type
Introverted Sensing type
Extraverted Intuitive type
Introverted Intuitive type
Jung also indicated that along with the main function, type could have a secondary function as well, which is different in nature to the primary function. In other words, the type with a main preference for T or F could also have a secondary preference for N or S and types with a main preference for N or S could also have a secondary preference for T or F. The two variations of the same core type would be different from each other, for instance, F type with preference for S would be different from F type with preference for N, and so on.
Myers was particularly interested in the mental processes that were dynamically opposite like E vs. I, S vs. N, T vs. F., because this would allow to formulate a bipolar question - if you prefer one thing then you do not prefer its opposite, theoretically.
Myers was faced with the challenge of how to identify which mental process would be the main and which one would be the secondary. For example if a person would show a preference for N and T, then would this be N that is the main preference and T that is the secondary, or vice versa?
If you are not familiar with Jungian work on types, there are two more definitions that Jung used to describe his types - Judgement and Perception (Some sources call it Rationality/Irrationality, perhaps due to the differences in translation). All his eight types Jung divided into two groups. Judging types became all Thinking and all Feeling types, Perceiving types became all Sensing and all Intuitive types.
Judging types according to Jung:
Extraverted Thinking type
Introverted Thinking type
Extraverted Feeling type
Introverted Feeling type
Perceiving types according to Jung:
Extraverted Sensing type
Introverted Sensing type
Extraverted Intuitive type
Introverted Intuitive type
How could this have helped Myers? Simple, if a person scores as ENT (Extravert and Intuitive and Thinking) their type could be either Extraverted Intuitive type (Perceiving group), or Extraverted Thinking type (Judging group). Which one it is, would be defined by knowing if the type was Judging or Perceiving. So everything was already concluded in Jungian research. However the preference for Judgement/Perception was not explored by Jung in his work as well as all the other preferences, so Myers decided to come up with her own Judgement/Perception scale instead. She probably figured, if people use their preferred judging process to order the external (!) world - they are Judging types, but if they use their preferred perceiving process to experience the external (!) world - they are Perceiving types.
Have a look:
Jung: Sensing and Intuition are P functions, always!
Myers: Sensing and Intuition are P functions, but only if they are extraverted!
Socionics: Sensing and Intuition are P functions, always!
Jung: Thinking and Feeling are J functions, always!
Myers: Thinking and Feeling are J functions, but only if they are extraverted!
Socionics: Thinking and Feeling are J functions, always!
Maybe Jungian definition of J and P was not clear enough to be implemented practically at once, but what was absolutely clear is that Sensing and Intuitive types he called P and Thinking and Feeling types he called J.
Now let's have a look at the official MBTI correspondence between Jungian type and MBTI type:
| Jung | MBTI theory |
| | |
Extraverted Thinking type
Introverted Thinking type
Extraverted Feeling type
Introverted Feeling type
Extraverted Sensing type
Introverted Sensing type
Extraverted Intuitive type
Introverted Intuitive type
|
ENTJ, ESTJ
INTP, ISTP
ENFJ, ESFJ
INFP, ISFP
ESFP, ESTP
ISFJ, ISTJ
ENFP, ENTP
INFJ, INTJ
|
This table clearly shows incompatibility between MBTI and the Jungian definition of J and P. According to Myers, Introverted Thinking and Introverted Feeling types appeared to be P instead of J, and Introverted Sensing and Introverted Intuitive types appeared to be J instead of P.
So, why this obvious mistake has not been rectified? First of all whether you want it or not, MBTI types obtained via MBTI test results (under ideal conditions) are actually quite compatible with Jungian type. The reason for this is that despite Myers wrongful, one-sided J/P definition, MBTI J/P questions often (not always) identify one's preference for Jungian J/P. The problem however is that there are three kinds of MBTI type profiles in existence:
1. Type descriptions empirically gathered from the observation of people who took the MBTI test. These profiles are compatible with Jungian types.
2. Type descriptions artificially manufactured based on different functions as they appear in MBTI model. These descriptions are more accurate than the previous, but they only refer to the descriptions of extravert types obtained this way. Only extravert type descriptions are Jung compatible for the reasons explained above. All introvert type descriptions are twisted around the J and P preference. So if you have MBTI description of ISFP obtained this way, for example, you should know that it is actually Jungian ISFJ description you look at.
3. Mixed type descriptions obtained via combination of 1. and 2. Extravert type descriptions are, again, compatible with Jung, but Introvert type descriptions look like a compromise between J and P types. Basically, introvert type descriptions look like one-size-fit-all descriptions.
If you are an introvert type, you are in trouble. For example, you take the test and come up J. Then you read some P type descriptions to compare and find out that your type fits P profile better then J. You look further and decide that you might be J after all. Or is it P?
The core of the problem is in Myers deciding to connect J and P with the external world, even though Jung wrote that J and P are independent of E and I. The extrovert types apparently do not suffer just as bad from this mistake.
There are two solutions to this problem:
1. A very simple solution. Let's admit that MBTI type and Jungian type are quite different, and drop all the relations between them. This will not solve the internal MBTI inconsistency problem (test results vs. modelling), though.
2. An even simpler solution. Let's finally agree that Jungian definition of J and P is the one to use. This eventually will straighten up MBTI model as for introverted types. The problem here is that so many researches and publications have been carried out using the faulty MBTI model and at the end of it all, those works will only be good for recycling purposes.
So for the time being, in order to separate the Jung compatible four-letter type acronym from the one that is not compatible with Jung, it is advisable to use a small letter "p" or "j" at the end of the four letter abbreviation. This would mean that the type is different from MBTI type and also fully compatible with Jungian theory and Socionics as well.
In conclusion, MBTI is actually one of the most popular psychometric tools of today. In fact, it is so well-known that MBTI type stands next to astrological type by its popularity. Despite this, MBTI theory has no proper method of verifying test results. The only verification tools available are the profiles of sixteen types accompanying the test. The problem with this is that the profiles are poorly written, reminding one of astrological interpretations and giving only vague answers regarding the accuracy of the test results. Sadly, MBTI is widely used to implement important decisions, including screening for employment, education, etc., which is arguably an ethical practice.
|
|
|
| C1 Outstanding article. A lot of the common misconceptions regarding the two systems are systematically deal with. Thank you for posting this! -- Anonymous |
| C2 I think you are not fully understanding the whole J/P issue, which is largely because the Myers-Briggs community has overwhelmingly misunderstood it. Jung talked about Perceiving functions and Judging functions. The Perceiving functions were obviously Sensing and iNtuition and the Judging funcitons were obviously Thinking and Feeling. As we know, everyone has a preferred Perceiving function (Extraverted Sensing, Introverted Sensing, Extraverted iNtuition, or Introverted iNtuition) and a preferred Judging function (Extraverted Thinking, Introverted Thinking, Extraverted Feeling, or Introverted Feeling). If one has a preference for an Extraverted Perceiving function (say Extraverted iNtuition), then they theory goes that their preferred Judging Function is Introverted (let's say Introvered Feeling). Let's say this particular individual's MOST preferred function is Extraverted iNtuition. Myers and Briggs had to figure out how to create an instrument that could identify one's type code. If they just did it by mental function (Extraverted iNtuition, Introverted iNtuition, Extraverted Sensing, Introverted Sensing, Extraverted Thinking, Introverted Thinking, Extraverted Feeling, Introverted Thinking), then 1) how would they determine which was dominant, and 2) what if someone picked two introverted functions (or two extraverted functions) as their most preferred? To solve this problem, they looked at Extraversion versus Introversion, Sensing versus iNtuition, Thinking versus Feeling, and Judging versus Perceiving. The Extraversion versus Introversion was ONLY for the purpose to discover the dominant function (NOT to decide whether or not the person is an "introvert" or an "extravert." (There's no such thing.) The ONLY purpose of the last letter - J/P Judging versus Perceiving - was to determine which of the functions was extraverted. THUS, what Myers and Briggs did was look at what Extraverted Sensing and Extraverted iNtuition had in common and made that the Perceiving part of the dichotomy and they looked at what Extraverted Thinking and Extraverted Feeling had in common and made that the Judging part of the dichotomy. THE ONLY PURPOSE of the last letter of the Myers-Briggs Type Code is to determine if the Perceiving function chosen (Sensing or iNtuition) or the Judgingn function chosen (Thinking or Feeling) is extraverted. That's it. Some practitioners try to create many more things out of it, but that was its sole purpose. -- Anonymous |
| C3 A2: That's actually the first time I've heard this argument. It would stand to reason that this was the intention, given that all of the J/P questions in the MBTI inventory deal with extraverted situations (though I am still not sold on the absolute validity of those questions). If this is the case, I wonder why Myers and Briggs did not also create a set of J/P questions aimed at the introverted functions, as a sort of double catch to really try and nail down the function directions. Quite fascinating, all the same. Thank you for posting that. -- Anonymous |
| C4 C2 I'm sure I've seen the similar explanation elsewhere on this website. However, I agree with C3 views about the J/P defined by extroverted situations according to MB => If you're orderly therefore you could only be orderly in regards to the external world. This is rather shallow thinking. What about your internal thought process? You can think in orderly way too, hence behave in orderly way. The questions of orderliness, for example, in the MB test do appeal to both worlds, even if they were initially intended only for extroverted situations. So unless there are exclusive extroverted situations only questions in the MB test, J/P questions as they are now indicate the J/P of the dominant function and NOT which *extroverted* function is J or P, even if MB people did not intend it that way. -- Anonymous |
| C5 exactly right -- Anonymous |
| C6 I am definated P preference. Despite me having many strong J-type qualities, I am very P inclined, pretty much every test showing this and I believe it to be true... Then why do I identify so much more with the INTP or INTj? I'm convinced that my primary function is Ti and my secondary is Ne; not Ni and then Te. You all seem very convinced that socionics is definately correct and Myer-Briggs is definately flawed on this matter... I'm very open-minded about it and if you can explain where I may be going wrong then I'm not going to be arrogant about it. Currently I'm inclined to believe that the MBTI is the more accurate so if you've got any information on this age-old INTP/J, then I'd be very interested in it. -- Jordan |
| C7 C6: If you're positive of having Ti Ne, then you likely prefer the creative function (Ne) over the dominant function (Ti). I have a close INTj friend who is virtually split 50/50 in his j/p dimension - he approaches things very intuitively (lack of attention to surroundings, excited by new possibilities), but yet his baseline operation is via his Ti (must wear a watch, must get up at the same time everyday, strives for closure). Introverts (and in my experience, especially intuitive introverts) tend to be only partially described with a j/p tag (this applies to both MBTI and socionics). More research is definitely required. -- Anonymous |
| C8 Oh right, so I was stuck with a doozey to begin with? I see. I guess I'll just have to look into it further then, perhaps with a subject (lol...) that isn't IN-. I would still be grateful to anyone able to clarify my uncertainty on the functions. As far as I'm concerned, the MBTI description of why I and E had an effect on the functions made perfect sense and rang true. -- Jordan |
C9 You know what they say... "There is no Ti in MBTI"  -- Anonymous |
| C10 Re: C2, C3, C4. Let me quote "Jung's Typology in Perpective" by Angelo Spoto, an excellent book. On page 176 he writes "However Briggs-Myers also did not feel that the information Jung provided on the introversion-extroversion polarity sufficiently expained the typological adaption that that both introverts and extroverts must make to the outside world; thus she went one step further than Jung by typologically characterizing that adaptation. She did this by extending the significance if Jung's perceiving-judging polarity as the main criterion for how one relates to the outside world." Thus Myers-Briggs introduces a P-J polarity which is not quite the same as Jung's P-J; it measures the perceiving-judging preference as it "relates to the *external* world." Spoto goes on to write: "Ultimately the person using Jungian typology will have tom decide first on the legitimacy of the MBTI innovation, then decide whether it is appropriate and useful in a particular case, and finally whether to employ the MBTI test." uee -- Anonymous |
| C11 [Ti] This article misrepresents a mere semantic difference between MBTI theory and Socionics as a contradiction in MBTI theory. The two theories differ on what they call Judging and Perceiving types. Using the terminology I learned from my father, who was a researcher of MBTI theory, what Socionics calls Judging and Perceiving types are known as Rational and Irrational types. The same distinction is recognized by both theories, and they differ only on what they call it. Furthermore, the distinction MBTI theory makes between what it calls Judging and Perceiving types is a valid distinction. First, when identified correctly, it is just as useful for determining a person's Jungian type as knowing whether the person is Rational or Irrational. Second, there is a real sense in which an MBTI I-P is a Perceiving type and an MBTI I-J is a Judging type. I am an MBTI INTP. I know from my own self-observation that Ti is dominant for me and Ne is auxiliary. Despite my dominant function being a judging one, my lifestyle is well characterized by the MBTI understanding of a Perceiving type. I keep my room and office messy and disorderly, I work flexible hours, and I'm adaptable to change. Whether the MBTI accurately measures the J/P difference for introverts is an empirical matter that doesn't impinge on the validity of the MBTI's J/P distinction. My personal experience with the MBTI is that it is a flawed instrument in this detail. But in understanding the distinction it makes between P and J, I do recognize myself as a P. I also recognize myself as a Rational type, what Socionics calls a -j, and there is no contradiction in being both. -- Fergus Duniho |
|
| Would you like to add anything? |
