Systems and Differences

With all the talk of different ways and systems of finding out which MBTI type you are, I felt that it would be helpful to put together a FAQ/sticky/etc. that covers the four most common systems that utilize Jungian concepts. This way we can see how they are similar, how they are different, and realize that concepts may not map directly between them.



Input appreciated. Each of the four will follow shortly in a separate post after this one...

 

Jungian Cognitive Processes

- From Jung's original work
- The ego has two methods of perception: Sensing and iNtuition
- The ego has two methods of judging: Feeling and Thinking
- Each of these functions can be directed inwards (Introverted) or outwards (Extraverted)
- In total, there are 8 functions (Se, Si, Ne, Ni, Fe, Fi, Te, Ti)

Assessment:

- Measures preference of Jungian functions
- Results are Jungian Cognitive Processes
- Gives you results in order of preference

Pros:

- Most authentic to Jung's work

Cons:

- Does not map directly to MBTI, KTS, or Socionics results

 

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)

- Based on Jung's original work
- Created by non-scientists/psychologists
- Assessment was devised to measure the preference of the Jungian functions
- New letter added for Judging or Perceiving as a measure of preferring to leave options open (P) or decided (J)


Assessment:

- measures preference of each letter of MBTI code (I vs. E, S vs. N, T vs. F, J vs. P)
- The results are an MBTI code
- The classic results would only tell you Dominant and Auxiliary Jungian functions
- Later researchers have added to the results in various ways

Pros:

- Most popular
- Results map directly to Keirsey Temperament Sorter

Cons:

- Results do not map directly to Jungian Cognitive Processes
- Results map erratically to Socionics

 

Keirsey Temperament Sorter

- Based upon Temperament and Systems theory correlated with Jung
- States that all people subdivide into four groups - Artisans, Guardians, Rationals, Idealists
- Each of the four groups has four roles that people fall into based on preference
- Roles are generally mutable, groups are generally not

Assessment:

- measures actions/behavior instead of preference
- results correlate to MBTI code

Pros:

- Four archetypes are easier to identify than 16
- Results are normally the same as MBTI
- Emphasis on behavior shows that self-development can change one's results
- Empahsis on typing by observation obviates many issues with the assessment

Cons:

- While Keirsey studied with Isabel Myers, his own system is not strictly Jungian-based
- Results do not map directly to Jungian Cognitive Processes
- Results map erratically to Socionics

 

Socionics

- Based upon Jungian theory
- Also based upon information processing theory
- Thinking is interpreted as "logic"
- Feeling is interpreted as "ethics"

Assessment:

- (I have no idea of the science behind the Socionics test)
- Results are given in MBTI format
- The last letter is generally in lower-case
- For introverts, the last letter is determined by clarity of function preference:

- N/S more clear : last letter is p
- T/F more clear : last letter is j
​

Pros:

- Socionics employs a vast type interactional system that can be useful
- Very popular in the Eastern Bloc

Cons:

- Called "pseudoscience" by most
- Due to reinterpretation of Cognitive Processes, does not map directly to them
- Maps erratically to MBTI
- Maps erratically to KTS