-Source- With Permission from the Original Article Writer
Shifting From MBTI to JCF: Why?
by simulatedworld
PersonalityNation.com
So the staff has requested that I write out the full case for abandoning the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and moving forward into a typology approach centered primarily around Jungian Cognitive Functions (or JCF, as we have recently--and affectionately--taken to calling it.)
1) Changes in the meaning and interpretation of MBTI type codes:
I have to say this is a topic that hasn't been addressed too much on internet typology forums, and I want to clear up some of the misconceptions involving terminology and so on by suggesting some standards for how to approach Jungian typology in a modern context, without the irritating bipolar dichotomy system upon which MBTI is founded.
"But wait Sim, if you don't like MBTI, why do you use its four-letter type code labels (ENFP, ISTJ, etc.) all the time?"
Well, dear reader whose future thoughts in response to this not-yet-published article I can apparently predict clairvoyantly, I'm glad you asked that question. First and foremost it's important to understand that modern Jungian typology has assimilated MBTI's type labels in reference to various combinations of Jungian Cognitive Functions, and in modern practice most of the better typologists on forums are using these four-letter codes with no intention of referencing MBTI's type profiles.
I feel like nobody has actually consciously pointed this out, and yet it's vital to understanding what's going on in the online typology forum community today. The fact is, it's simply easier to say "ESTP" than "person who prefers extroverted sensing introverted thinking extroverted feeling introverted intuition."
2) The problem with self-report:
Secondly, MBTI is a self-report instrument, which carries a number of obvious inherent flaws. As I've pointed out any number of times by now, self-report tests don't account for that which the test-taker believes erroneously about himself. They can't be counted on to produce accurate results because Jungian functions are, at their core, metaphorical representations of value systems, methods of navigating an approach to understanding the self and its relationship to the outside world.
If you don't understand a certain sort of perspective, a test that evaluates your understanding of that perspective based on your own biased self-description of your understanding of it is not going to generate any sort of meaningful result.
I'm honestly at a loss for why nobody seems to take this into account. You guys obsess over your cognitive functions tests, your Big 5, your MBTI results, your Socionics tests--as if any of it matters to anything! If we're going to do Jung and his work any sort of justice, we have to recognize that psychological type is simply too complex to be tested by a 20-minute multiple choice questionnaire.
3) Psychological type can't be quantified objectively:
Sorry Te doms, I know it's hard for you to place value on anything that can't be objectively measured, but if that's a deal-breaker for you, then your time would likely be more productively spent on something other than Jungian typology. We're not working with science here; we're working with philosophical metaphors, abstract generalized representations of the various kinds of values and self-images people use to construct their identities. That's a REALLY complicated thing to figure out, and it's not going to be solved by a short survey about whether or not you like to organize your desk.
I heard recently about someone claiming to be INTP in Jungian functions and yet ENTJ in MBTI. That may well be true, but the fact that the person who said it found his MBTI test result significant enough to even bother including it in the description in the first place is, unfortunately, highly representative of the vast overemphasis the online type community places on type test results. No multiple choice questionnaire can accurately test your type because you can't accurately or objectively assess your own understanding of perspectives and mindsets you don't understand, and don't even REALIZE you don't understand because you've never experienced them firsthand.
When I mention Jungian typology to most people who aren't familiar with it, but have heard of the MBTI, it's understandable that they wouldn't be aware of what modern typology has done with MBTI's type labels. That's certainly a reasonable mistake, but it's time that this nomenclature discrepancy be cleared up. "I'm ESFP" simply means "I'm an Se dominant with Fi, Te and Ni as my supporting attitudes", not "I use more S than N/more F than T, etc."
4) Too much focus on what, not why:
While we're on that topic, let's consider what MBTI was designed for. Myers and Briggs attempted to borrow (and grossly oversimplify) Jung's ideas in order to design a quick and easy test to help people get an idea of what career path might fit them best. It asks a series of questions about what you do with your life--that was never Jung's focus. He spent the bulk of his career researching subconscious motivations for human psychological needs and value systems: he was after why we think, feel, and behave the way we do.
For instance, why did I use the Oxford comma there? Did I want to impress you all with my sophisticated English? Did I do it just because I am personally irritated by what I see as bad English? Did I do it because having good English is valued among the people I consider peers on this forum? Did I do it because that's what I've always done so it's comfortable? I could have done it for any number of different reasons, likely a combination of several influences from different functional perspectives. If a type test asked me, "Do you use the Oxford comma?", how would that information tell us anything relevant about my value system without knowing why I use it?
The problem with the "what" over "why" approach is that the same action can mean a million different things under different contexts and coming from different people. Functions can't be directly observed; they have to be inferred by collecting a lot of data on a specific person over a lengthy period and coming to know his most treasured values through personal interaction and in-depth analysis of his motivations and viewpoints.
5) Jung's ideas don't translate coherently into bipolar dichotomies or "sliding scales":
That's not even getting into the myriad problems with the entire concept of using bipolar dichotomies to model personality. I get so tired of seeing people post, "Oh well I used to be a J because I used more J than P, but now I am very borderline on P/J because I do less planning", and this is pretty much all thanks to MBTI. When you don't even acknowledge the difference between Se/Si or Ne/Ni or Te/Ti or Fe/Fi, you're missing the fundamental point of what each of those value systems represents.
Just the other day on PersonalityCafe I saw a post where someone claimed that Lady Gaga used to be an ISFP but has "developed into an NFP" because she's learned to think abstractly. This is exactly the kind of crap I'm talking about. That's what happens when an ISFP grows into tertiary Ni--it doesn't mean she is turning into an INFP!
(On a side note, I've seen a lot of talk recently about how "Ne and Ni are really two sides of the same coin", but I think this is a mistake. I think Ne and Ni contradict each other about the way to deal with abstract perceptions--I think Ne and Si are two sides of the same coin, and this is why the two always accompany each other.)
6) MBTI has created numerous misconceptions and erroneous colloquial definitions of Jungian terms:
Anyway, MBTI is also responsible for the misconception that intro/extroversion is based purely on how much social interaction you do. This couldn't be further from the truth. E/I isn't about being social. T/F isn't about being an emotionless prick or an overly sensitive baby. P/J isn't about being messy or neat, and FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, S/N is not about seeing "details vs. the big picture."
That last one is possibly the worst thing MBTI has done to Jung's ideas, almost single-handedly. No, you don't need to be an N type to "see the big picture." Hell, you don't even need to be an N type to have a strongly developed iNtuitive function! Which leads into yet another problem...
7) MBTI ignores functional imbalances and mistypes those who emphasize tertiary over secondary:
MBTI doesn't account for dominant/tertiary loops, because it assumes that anyone who accents his N function over his S function must be an N type, etc. This one is really pervasive--some hyper-introverted Ni+Ti INFJ with poorly developed Fe shows up and people say, "OMG HE IS MORE T THAN F, HE MUST BE INTJ", which utterly misses the point and does this person a disservice by mistyping him and falsely attributing a Te attitude to someone whose value system has nothing to do with Te.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: INTJ vs. INFJ isn't about "more T vs. more F"; it's about TeFi vs. FeTi. Until you guys learn this, you are just going to keep plowing into the same wall of misunderstandings and erroneous type reads.
8) There is no objective correctness in philosophy:
So how do you type people, then, if you don't know them in depth? Well see, that's the thing--Jungian type can't be quantified and therefore has no objective definition. Jungian types are rather like "genres" of people, in that there's no way to empirically assess them. They only exist as general, collective understandings among people who have studied them, and different people may disagree about a person's type. Neither is objectively right or wrong. That is the nature of the beast. Reading types is something that happens gradually--the more you've done it, the faster and more accurately you can do it. The more information you obtain on a given person, the more likely your type read is to be accurate. If you're experienced with typology, you can snap type a lot of people with relatively high accuracy, but you're still going to be wrong sometimes--first impressions can be misleading, and there's no simple quick fix in the form of an internet quiz that will settle the momentous question of your identity for you.
If you can't deal with that, forget typology and go work on the hard science of mapping out the entirety of human cognition in quantifiable terms--I imagine you'll figure it out by the year 4,000 or so. Good luck!
Until science completely figures out cognition, however, we're going to have to settle for the imprecise and nebulous nature of philosophy and analytical psychology, which depends heavily on subjective interpretation, and thus can't be tested meaningfully with a simple questionnaire. Don't like it? Don't bother with Jung.
9) MBTI creates erroneous assumptions about surface similarities between people of the same type or similar types:
Another of the more irritating problems is that MBTI results in the erroneous assumption that people of the same type all must behave similarly or possess similar surface preferences, religious/political/social beliefs, etc. I've lost count of how many times I've seen, "But he can't be INTJ, because he doesn't remind me of this other INTJ that I know!" or "There's no way he's INFP, because he's way too rude to me to be an F!" or worse yet, "He can't possibly be an S--he's way too smart!"
That doesn't mean they aren't the same type; it means you haven't yet recognized the similarities between their cognitive approaches because you're too busy focusing on virtually meaningless surface differences.
10) MBTI misrepresents types that share all four function attitudes as "complete opposites" when they are nothing of the sort:
Lastly, MBTI is heavily misleading in its portrayal of types that share zero letters as "opposites." Without JCF, it's impossible to see how ESFJ and INTP could be categorized together--they differ on all four dichotomies, so they must be opposites, right?
Wrong. They also share all four functions attitudes {Fe, Ne, Si, Ti}. They'll probably have trouble getting along earlier in life before their functions are differentiated, but once they grow into their full potential they become, in many respects, far more similar to each other than to types that share one, two, or even three of their MBTI letters.
Generally speaking, I still get along vastly better with ISFJs (with whom I share zero letters) than with ENTJs, with whom I share three. If you don't understand JCF, it's impossible to see why, and it's impossible to have any idea what Jung was talking about or what any of this personality typing stuff is actually about if you still stick to a simplistic system designed to tell you all about your deepest personal values based on a 20-minute internet quiz.
Once again, forget what and focus on why. Once you do that, you'll realize the massive inherent problem with type profiles, start to study Jungian Cognitive Functions, figure out your type and others' types for real, and take off the damn training wheels.
~SW
-Source- With Permission from the Original Article Writer
Shifting From MBTI to JCF: Why?
by simulatedworld
PersonalityNation.com
So the staff has requested that I write out the full case for abandoning the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and moving forward into a typology approach centered primarily around Jungian Cognitive Functions (or JCF, as we have recently--and affectionately--taken to calling it.)
1) Changes in the meaning and interpretation of MBTI type codes:
I have to say this is a topic that hasn't been addressed too much on internet typology forums, and I want to clear up some of the misconceptions involving terminology and so on by suggesting some standards for how to approach Jungian typology in a modern context, without the irritating bipolar dichotomy system upon which MBTI is founded.
"But wait Sim, if you don't like MBTI, why do you use its four-letter type code labels (ENFP, ISTJ, etc.) all the time?"
Well, dear reader whose future thoughts in response to this not-yet-published article I can apparently predict clairvoyantly, I'm glad you asked that question. First and foremost it's important to understand that modern Jungian typology has assimilated MBTI's type labels in reference to various combinations of Jungian Cognitive Functions, and in modern practice most of the better typologists on forums are using these four-letter codes with no intention of referencing MBTI's type profiles.
I feel like nobody has actually consciously pointed this out, and yet it's vital to understanding what's going on in the online typology forum community today. The fact is, it's simply easier to say "ESTP" than "person who prefers extroverted sensing introverted thinking extroverted feeling introverted intuition."
2) The problem with self-report:
Secondly, MBTI is a self-report instrument, which carries a number of obvious inherent flaws. As I've pointed out any number of times by now, self-report tests don't account for that which the test-taker believes erroneously about himself. They can't be counted on to produce accurate results because Jungian functions are, at their core, metaphorical representations of value systems, methods of navigating an approach to understanding the self and its relationship to the outside world.
If you don't understand a certain sort of perspective, a test that evaluates your understanding of that perspective based on your own biased self-description of your understanding of it is not going to generate any sort of meaningful result.
I'm honestly at a loss for why nobody seems to take this into account. You guys obsess over your cognitive functions tests, your Big 5, your MBTI results, your Socionics tests--as if any of it matters to anything! If we're going to do Jung and his work any sort of justice, we have to recognize that psychological type is simply too complex to be tested by a 20-minute multiple choice questionnaire.
3) Psychological type can't be quantified objectively:
Sorry Te doms, I know it's hard for you to place value on anything that can't be objectively measured, but if that's a deal-breaker for you, then your time would likely be more productively spent on something other than Jungian typology. We're not working with science here; we're working with philosophical metaphors, abstract generalized representations of the various kinds of values and self-images people use to construct their identities. That's a REALLY complicated thing to figure out, and it's not going to be solved by a short survey about whether or not you like to organize your desk.
I heard recently about someone claiming to be INTP in Jungian functions and yet ENTJ in MBTI. That may well be true, but the fact that the person who said it found his MBTI test result significant enough to even bother including it in the description in the first place is, unfortunately, highly representative of the vast overemphasis the online type community places on type test results. No multiple choice questionnaire can accurately test your type because you can't accurately or objectively assess your own understanding of perspectives and mindsets you don't understand, and don't even REALIZE you don't understand because you've never experienced them firsthand.
When I mention Jungian typology to most people who aren't familiar with it, but have heard of the MBTI, it's understandable that they wouldn't be aware of what modern typology has done with MBTI's type labels. That's certainly a reasonable mistake, but it's time that this nomenclature discrepancy be cleared up. "I'm ESFP" simply means "I'm an Se dominant with Fi, Te and Ni as my supporting attitudes", not "I use more S than N/more F than T, etc."
4) Too much focus on what, not why:
While we're on that topic, let's consider what MBTI was designed for. Myers and Briggs attempted to borrow (and grossly oversimplify) Jung's ideas in order to design a quick and easy test to help people get an idea of what career path might fit them best. It asks a series of questions about what you do with your life--that was never Jung's focus. He spent the bulk of his career researching subconscious motivations for human psychological needs and value systems: he was after why we think, feel, and behave the way we do.
For instance, why did I use the Oxford comma there? Did I want to impress you all with my sophisticated English? Did I do it just because I am personally irritated by what I see as bad English? Did I do it because having good English is valued among the people I consider peers on this forum? Did I do it because that's what I've always done so it's comfortable? I could have done it for any number of different reasons, likely a combination of several influences from different functional perspectives. If a type test asked me, "Do you use the Oxford comma?", how would that information tell us anything relevant about my value system without knowing why I use it?
The problem with the "what" over "why" approach is that the same action can mean a million different things under different contexts and coming from different people. Functions can't be directly observed; they have to be inferred by collecting a lot of data on a specific person over a lengthy period and coming to know his most treasured values through personal interaction and in-depth analysis of his motivations and viewpoints.
5) Jung's ideas don't translate coherently into bipolar dichotomies or "sliding scales":
That's not even getting into the myriad problems with the entire concept of using bipolar dichotomies to model personality. I get so tired of seeing people post, "Oh well I used to be a J because I used more J than P, but now I am very borderline on P/J because I do less planning", and this is pretty much all thanks to MBTI. When you don't even acknowledge the difference between Se/Si or Ne/Ni or Te/Ti or Fe/Fi, you're missing the fundamental point of what each of those value systems represents.
Just the other day on PersonalityCafe I saw a post where someone claimed that Lady Gaga used to be an ISFP but has "developed into an NFP" because she's learned to think abstractly. This is exactly the kind of crap I'm talking about. That's what happens when an ISFP grows into tertiary Ni--it doesn't mean she is turning into an INFP!
(On a side note, I've seen a lot of talk recently about how "Ne and Ni are really two sides of the same coin", but I think this is a mistake. I think Ne and Ni contradict each other about the way to deal with abstract perceptions--I think Ne and Si are two sides of the same coin, and this is why the two always accompany each other.)
6) MBTI has created numerous misconceptions and erroneous colloquial definitions of Jungian terms:
Anyway, MBTI is also responsible for the misconception that intro/extroversion is based purely on how much social interaction you do. This couldn't be further from the truth. E/I isn't about being social. T/F isn't about being an emotionless prick or an overly sensitive baby. P/J isn't about being messy or neat, and FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, S/N is not about seeing "details vs. the big picture."
That last one is possibly the worst thing MBTI has done to Jung's ideas, almost single-handedly. No, you don't need to be an N type to "see the big picture." Hell, you don't even need to be an N type to have a strongly developed iNtuitive function! Which leads into yet another problem...
7) MBTI ignores functional imbalances and mistypes those who emphasize tertiary over secondary:
MBTI doesn't account for dominant/tertiary loops, because it assumes that anyone who accents his N function over his S function must be an N type, etc. This one is really pervasive--some hyper-introverted Ni+Ti INFJ with poorly developed Fe shows up and people say, "OMG HE IS MORE T THAN F, HE MUST BE INTJ", which utterly misses the point and does this person a disservice by mistyping him and falsely attributing a Te attitude to someone whose value system has nothing to do with Te.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: INTJ vs. INFJ isn't about "more T vs. more F"; it's about TeFi vs. FeTi. Until you guys learn this, you are just going to keep plowing into the same wall of misunderstandings and erroneous type reads.
8) There is no objective correctness in philosophy:
So how do you type people, then, if you don't know them in depth? Well see, that's the thing--Jungian type can't be quantified and therefore has no objective definition. Jungian types are rather like "genres" of people, in that there's no way to empirically assess them. They only exist as general, collective understandings among people who have studied them, and different people may disagree about a person's type. Neither is objectively right or wrong. That is the nature of the beast. Reading types is something that happens gradually--the more you've done it, the faster and more accurately you can do it. The more information you obtain on a given person, the more likely your type read is to be accurate. If you're experienced with typology, you can snap type a lot of people with relatively high accuracy, but you're still going to be wrong sometimes--first impressions can be misleading, and there's no simple quick fix in the form of an internet quiz that will settle the momentous question of your identity for you.
If you can't deal with that, forget typology and go work on the hard science of mapping out the entirety of human cognition in quantifiable terms--I imagine you'll figure it out by the year 4,000 or so. Good luck!
Until science completely figures out cognition, however, we're going to have to settle for the imprecise and nebulous nature of philosophy and analytical psychology, which depends heavily on subjective interpretation, and thus can't be tested meaningfully with a simple questionnaire. Don't like it? Don't bother with Jung.
9) MBTI creates erroneous assumptions about surface similarities between people of the same type or similar types:
Another of the more irritating problems is that MBTI results in the erroneous assumption that people of the same type all must behave similarly or possess similar surface preferences, religious/political/social beliefs, etc. I've lost count of how many times I've seen, "But he can't be INTJ, because he doesn't remind me of this other INTJ that I know!" or "There's no way he's INFP, because he's way too rude to me to be an F!" or worse yet, "He can't possibly be an S--he's way too smart!"
That doesn't mean they aren't the same type; it means you haven't yet recognized the similarities between their cognitive approaches because you're too busy focusing on virtually meaningless surface differences.
10) MBTI misrepresents types that share all four function attitudes as "complete opposites" when they are nothing of the sort:
Lastly, MBTI is heavily misleading in its portrayal of types that share zero letters as "opposites." Without JCF, it's impossible to see how ESFJ and INTP could be categorized together--they differ on all four dichotomies, so they must be opposites, right?
Wrong. They also share all four functions attitudes {Fe, Ne, Si, Ti}. They'll probably have trouble getting along earlier in life before their functions are differentiated, but once they grow into their full potential they become, in many respects, far more similar to each other than to types that share one, two, or even three of their MBTI letters.
Generally speaking, I still get along vastly better with ISFJs (with whom I share zero letters) than with ENTJs, with whom I share three. If you don't understand JCF, it's impossible to see why, and it's impossible to have any idea what Jung was talking about or what any of this personality typing stuff is actually about if you still stick to a simplistic system designed to tell you all about your deepest personal values based on a 20-minute internet quiz.
Once again, forget what and focus on why. Once you do that, you'll realize the massive inherent problem with type profiles, start to study Jungian Cognitive Functions, figure out your type and others' types for real, and take off the damn training wheels.
~SW
-Source- With Permission from the Original Article Writer
Last edited:
