'pure' Jungian types

[KazeCraven]

from here: http://tap3x.net/EMBTI/jthirdprinc.html

the MBTI, as a test, is not capable of distinguishing what has been called 'pure' Jungian types. These are types whose dominant AND auxiliary functions have the SAME DIRECTION - eg, the individual who has introverted intuition and introverted thinking for dominant and auxiliary functions, respectively.

Anyone heard of these kiddos? Apparently they fell by the wayside when MBTI got popular.

Myers has a little something to say about these types:

Speaking of the 'pure' type, the authors of 'Gifts Differing' say -
Such cases do occur and may seem to support the widespread assumption among Jungian analysts that the dominant and auxiliary are naturally both extraverted or both introverted; but such cases are not the norm: they are instances of insufficient use and development of the auxiliary. To live happily and effectively in both worlds, people need a BALANCING auxiliary that will make it possible to adapt in both directions -to the world around them and to their inner selves.

Does the idea of a 'pure' type seem reasonable to you?

 

[athenian200]

My function order is Ni > Ti > Fe.

So I'm an INFJ in MBTI with lower than average Fe.

In this system, I would be an INT due to Ti being second in strength to Ni.

Considering that I am a "pure" type... I suppose it is reasonable. I am unusually introverted, after all.

Fe is indeed something I use when I interact with the outer world... I just don't do so that often, hence the unusual strength of Ti.

 

[88chaz88]

Huh?

I go Se>Si>Ti. Does that make me extraverted?

If so, I call bull.

 

[athenian200]

I go Se>Si>Ti. Does that make me extraverted?

Either that, or you tested incorrectly. Sometimes an auxiliary shows up as a dominant, depending on your mood. I think that's more likely.

If so, I call bull.

Not so fast! Certain Extraverted types aren't Extraverted in the sense of liking to interact with people. You may be Extraverted in the sense of paying attention to your surroundings and preferring to do things rather than think about them. And still not like to interact with people.

That said, I'm sure there's a rational explanation for this that doesn't involve you being an Extravert, or the theory being invalid.

 

[88chaz88]

Either that, or you tested incorrectly. Sometimes an auxiliary shows up as a dominant, depending on your mood. I think that's more likely.
Not so fast! Certain Extraverted types aren't Extraverted in the sense of liking to interact with people. You may be Extraverted in the sense of paying attention to your surroundings and preferring to do things rather than think about them. And still not like to interact with people.

That said, I'm sure there's a rational explanation for this that doesn't involve you being an Extravert, or the theory being invalid.

But extraversion and introversion is people based. I feel drained interacting with people and recharge on my own. I show all signs of being introverted.

I will however, admit that my Se is more developed than my Ti.

 

[KazeCraven]

Oh right, I forgot.

This community is of the opinion that any order of cognitive functions is perfectly fine. Well, let's try this...

@88chaz88: if you are introverting most of the time, wouldn't it make sense that an introverting function is most dominant? Or are you going by cognitive development rather than inclination? I'm just confused as to how you say that your dominant function is Se, but that you aren't an extrovert.

e.g. by inclination, I'm Ti-Ne-Si-Fe, but by apparent usage/ability I'm Ti > Ne > "Fi" > Si > "Te" > Fe > "Se" > "Ni". It's pretty similar for me, but if I were somehow really good with Si, that wouldn't matter so long as I still used Ti as my dominant function (the one 'in control' so to speak). I put quotes over the other functions b/c I'm of the opinion that these apparent functions are actually interactions with the type-defined functions.

ETA: okay, so it seems to have more to do with development

 

[athenian200]

But extraversion and introversion is people based. I feel drained interacting with people and recharge on my own. I show all signs of being introverted.

It's based that way in language, but not in Jungian theory. Extraversion implies a focus on the outer world, not necessarily dealing with people.

I will however, admit that my Se is more developed than my Ti.

Ah. Well, there is an idea that types use functions differently. So you may have stronger Se, but still use it in an auxiliary fashion, unlike an ESTP who would use it in a dominant fashion. So theoretically, how you use a function, is just as important as how strong it is.

Sorry. I admit this is all very confusing. I've been studying it for 5 years, and I still don't have all the answers.

 

[88chaz88]

@88chaz88: if you are introverting most of the time, wouldn't it make sense that an introverting function is most dominant? Or are you going by cognitive development rather than inclination? I'm just confused as to how you say that your dominant function is Se, but that you aren't an extrovert.

Can't it be the same as INFJ's that go Ni>Ti still being INFJ? Am I missing something?

If the cognitive functions are more important than the MBTI codes, why don't we test for them first and gather MBTI from the results of your functions? It just seems more logical.

Why can't Se be my most developed function and yet me be ISTP? I'm certainly not an ESTP, not by a long shot.

 

[88chaz88]

Ah. Well, there is an idea that types use functions differently. So you may have stronger Se, but still use it in an auxiliary fashion, unlike an ESTP who would use it in a dominant fashion. So theoretically, how you use a function, is just as important as how strong it is.

Sorry. I admit this is all very confusing. I've been studying it for 5 years, and I still don't have all the answers.

Now that makes more sense to me.

 

[DoveAlexa]

Well, according to 2 functions tests I've done I'm either:
Ni>Fi>Fe
or
Fe>Fi>Ni
In both tests my Fi and Fe were nearly equal (one was only 0.5 points difference)

 

[KazeCraven]

Can't it be the same as INFJ's that go Ni>Ti still being INFJ? Am I missing something?

If the cognitive functions are more important than the MBTI codes, why don't we test for them first and gather MBTI from the results of your functions? It just seems more logical.

Why can't Se be my most developed function and yet me be ISTP? I'm certainly not an ESTP, not by a long shot.

Hmm, okay so we're basically going by tests like this (http://www.keys2cognition.com/explore.htm) right? It seems to me that even then, we're just testing development by self-assessment, and thus it'll only give you an idea of what your type is. The general idea behind it is that preference and ability tend to go together, but it is preference that we're getting at with the MBTI.

The problem with testing cognitive functions is that it's pretty difficult to test development by self-assessment. In fact, this particular test takes the results made and matches them to the types of people who scored similarly. This is why you might score highest on Se, but come out as ISTP. That doesn't mean that your Se is your dominant function, nor does it even necessarily mean that it is your most developed function. Why? Because this test is actually just measuring how much you identify with Se-type statements.

The tl;dr version is cognitive functions are the most important, but measuring them directly by a self-assessment survey is inaccurate.

ETA: Oh, and I should add that I agree with athenian200's last post, though I would qualify that with saying that how a functions is used is actually more important than how strong it is.

 

[Quinlan]

It's based that way in language, but not in Jungian theory. Extraversion implies a focus on the outer world, not necessarily dealing with people.

This is why I've considered ESFP for me.

I think the "people" extraverts are Fe doms, the other Jungian extraverts aren't necessarily as people orientated.

It would be cool if more people used MBTI in the nuanced way you're talking about but for most people the more popular concept of introverts being shy, quiet, antisocial etc. and extraverts being outgoing, sociable, party, "people" types is too ingrained.

 

[deadred]

I look at the MBTI definitions as being fluid. We just aren't the same way every minute of the day. I am reminded of scenes from Star Trek where Bones has somebody in the sick bay who is well and their physical parameters still fluctuate. There meters are up and down, but within reasonable limits. The real sick ones show very low readings with big fluctuations. If today I am 58% extroverted, does it not mean that I can be 58% introverted tomorrow? If I am 60% sensing today, why can't I be 70% feeling tomorrow? Certainly I am what I am basically, but I refuse to be locked into being anything at any given time. I don't see any exactitude in any of this. I am definitely INFJ, but I am also morphing at any particular time. It is how I am.

 

[jimtaylor]

I don't know about the fluid thing. I have taken the MBTI and cognitive tests at all times of the day at all times of the year and it comes out pretty consistent, just the numbers changing a little bit but the top 4 are always the same for me. It goes Ni; Fi; Fe; Te; then normally Ne but somtimes Ti. My S function is by far my weakest.

 

[IndigoSensor]

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.

 

[arbygil]

Actually, Indy, that makes a lot of sense. There's a difference between what we test, because our ego gets in the way - we think too much about it. We want a certain outcome, so we begin taking the tests to obtain that outcome. It's very difficult to be objective about ourselves.

If we really didn't care about looking a certain way to others or to ourselves, or appearing stupid, or whatever reasons might occur...we might get an accurate assessment.

But to be honest, I think the only way to get an accurate assessment of who we are is to have someone take the test on our behalf (someone who really, really knows us).

 

[DoveAlexa]

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.

 

[KazeCraven]

I agree with most of what you said, except...

At the same time though, its silly to think that ones personality is limited to just 1/2 of a set of possibillites.

Are you getting at the idea that an INTP is not just limited to Ti, Ne, Si, and Fe (and INFJ not just to Ni, Fe, Ti, Se; etc.)? If so, I'd have to ask why these aren't included in most descriptions as well as why we'd even bother designating the bottom two. Seems to me that if I am Ti-dom with Ne-aux, and I can use everything, then I have no reason to focus on my relationship with Si and Fe per se.

Of course, if you are referring to something else, then I'm curious about that too.

 

[IndigoSensor]

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.

...I'll get back to you on that one. Its one of those things I have listed in my head as "it is because it is". It makes sense to me, I just have a lack of reason to why.

I agree with most of what you said, except...



Are you getting at the idea that an INTP is not just limited to Ti, Ne, Si, and Fe (and INFJ not just to Ni, Fe, Ti, Se; etc.)? If so, I'd have to ask why these aren't included in most descriptions as well as why we'd even bother designating the bottom two. Seems to me that if I am Ti-dom with Ne-aux, and I can use everything, then I have no reason to focus on my relationship with Si and Fe per se.

Of course, if you are referring to something else, then I'm curious about that too.

Oh, I am referring to the cognitive function test (i.e. stereotypical manifestations). Imagine that you entered the cognitive function test knowing your type (for you as an INTP). Because of this, you are not allowed to answer any questions based on Ni Fi Te or Se because of it. It's silly to think just because you are one type you are then limited to stereotypical aspects of just your four functions.

 

[athenian200]

IndigoSensor:

I think you're trying too hard to confirm existing assumptions, and putting too much faith in the rectitude of them. You seem too certain that the rules that limit MBTI are the rules of how our psyches work, which doesn't seem logical to me.

A model is not reality. Even the creators of MBTI admit that pure type can exist, but claim that it would not be particularly balanced or healthy.

The model of MBTI is only set up to accommodate archetypes based on this assumption. That doesn't affect the truth of the assumption, it just makes it that much more difficult to see through it, as the whole system is built up around it.

In the end, you cannot make hard and fast rules about how theoretical systems function, and apply them uniformly to reality expecting them to fit perfectly. There has to be a lot of trial and error, along with room for rare exceptions to general rules that often appear.