Perhaps, the biggest problem in having productive and fruitful discussions on the topic of Myers-Briggs is that people are often speaking at odds with each other due to having arrived at their own personal definitions of the basic terminology of Myers-Briggs.
This appears most prevalent in what are known as the 8 cognitive functions:
- Ne
- Te
- Fe
- Se
- Ni
- Ti
- Fi
- Si
For example, what Ne is to one person may not square with another person.
I think the basic problem is that there are no stable definitions of these functions, and moreover, nobody knows for sure what they are or whether they exist.
The most stable definitions are mathematical in nature. If we were able to assign for example Ne to the number 1 and say that no matter what, Ne must always equal 1 if it is to be Ne, then that would eliminate the squiggly element to the functions.
I’m not necessarily suggesting that we do this, but, I consider it a matter of the first priority to assign relatively stable definitions to these 8 functions to have anything approaching a reasonable discourse about Myers-Briggs types.
When it comes to the matter of discussing one of the 16 types, which by definition includes two or more of the 8 cognitive functions in some kind of position and hierarchy within the economy of one of these 16 types, matters are complicated seemingly beyond repair.
For example, when a person is agreeing or disagreeing with me on what an INFJ is or isn’t, it is a discussion of the most fruitless nature, unless we have defined what an INFJ is by definition.
An INFJ is one of the 16 types that by definition has the cognitive function of Ni as a dominant function and the cognitive function of Fe as an auxiliary function.
And by definition, since Ni is always the exact opposite of Se in this system (per Jung) it is assigned a position that would be the opposite of something that dominates in the nature – what Jung called the inferior function.
This is as far as Jung went with types in the book he wrote that started this whole system. To him, there were 8 cognitive functions and a dominant orientation (or position) could be formed out of any one of them in the psyche.
This begs the question of “What is a dominant orientation or position?” This would need to be accorded a relatively stable definition as well as the 8 cognitive functions, any of which may tenant this position. Jung doesn’t really describe this dominant orientation as well as he does the 8 cognitive functions.
However, it wouldn’t really matter if he did or not since we don’t know where he got these 8 cognitive functions from.
I mean, he was using terms that had been around for a long time. Such terms as introversion, extraversion, intuition, thinking, feeling, and sensation are all common terms that had been in usage for a long time.
The real apparent innovation that Jung made is that he puts these terms into a closed system…
To continue reading you must sign up for a Starling subscription.
Once signed up, you’ll have instantaneous access to this article and many others.
See ya on the inside!
Recent comments