An Effort to Create Stable Definitions for Myers-Briggs Terminology

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. Here are his simple rules for this:

• Introversion is the opposite of extraversion (this was well-known at the time)
• Thinking is the opposite of feeling
• Intuition is the opposite of sensation

Those are all opposites that I think could be easily observed in relationships between people, for example.

Classically, it has been observed that women tend to be feelers and men tend to be thinkers. Women want to be heard when they talk and men want to solve the problem. That’s classic psychology and a commonly acknowledged biological difference between the genders.

Also, women tend to introverted and men tend to be extraverted as far as classical psychology and biology go.

Jung also added a new set of terms to these somewhat relatively well-known dichotomies: Perception and Judgment.

He calls the Thinking and Feeling axis, judging functions, and the intuition and sensation axis, perceiving functions.

This was new. No one had done this before.

Judging functions are rational functions and Perceiving functions are irrational.

This is a bit strange. The feeling function is therefore a rational function. This doesn’t square with tradition.

Anyway, the point I’m trying to make is that this whole business started with Jung’s book Psychological Types in which he introduced the basics of this system that would later be appropriated by Isabel Myers and Katherine Briggs and elaborated on. Myers is the one directly responsible for the current widespread popularity of the system due in large part to her development of a test that determines one’s type, the MBTI.

She also added a very important term to the system – the concept of the tertiary function.

Jung had hinted at an auxiliary function in his book and also come up with the dominant and inferior positions.

So, in total from the combined work of these three people we also have the terms: dominant, auxiliary, tertiary, and inferior positions. A cognitive function will be present at each of these positions in a simple logic:

Whatever cognitive function is at the dominant position, it’s exact opposite must necessarily be at the inferior position.

The auxiliary function was briefly defined by Jung as one of the cognitive functions that had a relatively good amount of development in the psyche, but not as much as the dominant function, thus making it second-class in nature and a sort of aid to the dominant function’s aims. The rule here is that it can’t be the opposite attitude or element of the dominant. It also cannot be the dominant itself and in fact, it must have the opposite attitude orientation of the dominant. If the dominant is introverted, the aux. must be extraverted and vice-versa.

But, what about the opposite of the aux function? Following Jung’s logic, it seems that there would be another function position that was opposite to the aux. position. All Jung had to say about it was if the dominant orientation is introverted than all the remaining cognitive function positions would be extraverted in the psyche.

Isabel Myers came along and thought that was rather neat. But, she thought wouldn’t it be groovier if the opposite function to the auxiliary was the exact opposite cognitive function just like the dominant function’s relation to the inferior function. As so it came into being – the tertiary function was the exact opposite cognitive function to the auxiliary. Which makes sense if we are following the strict logic of Jung’s closed system.

But wait! Who are these people? Who is to say that there is any such thing as a dominant introverted intuitive type? Who is to say there is any such thing as introverted intuition? Who is to say there is any such thing as intuition in the sense of a closed and necessary either/or ego-orientation? Why are there only 8 cognitive functions? In short, aren’t we just making shit up?

There are so many assumptions being made by people in discourse about these functions. And if it wasn’t enough of a problem that we had to deal with the Jung’s definitions of what the cognitive functions were, then we had Isabel Myer’s take on them. Then David Kiersey. Then Beebe.

Then everyone who had access to the internet and an opinion.

And so that is the situation which we find ourselves in at present.

I say we go back to basics. All this shit comes from Jung – bottom line. It was all presented in one book – Psychological Types.

Now despite the openness to conjecture of many of the elements of these 8 cognitive functions, there are a few things that are necessary to accept if one is to use and talk of this system in any way at all:

 

1. That they exist, at least hypothetically or conceptually
2. Each of these cognitive functions has an exact opposite function by definition
3. These functions are participating in a closed system of some sort and can therefore explain every possible temperament type possible.

 

The second proposition strikes me as important for the purposes of arriving closer to a stable definition of these functions because if we accept that it is true, which we should or we are not using Jung’s system and we can therefore come up with different rules.

Anyway, this system is formed out of three pairs of opposites. And this is somewhat approaching mathematical definitions. They are always opposites no matter what. If they aren’t, then nothing else makes much sense.

The assumption has also been made by proposition 1 that these cognitive functions exist as entities in some way. They are real.

These real entities that are primarily defined stably by their opposition to one other entity in a closed system of choices per proposition 3. So not only do they exist and not only does each entity have an exact opposite that it depends on for its existence, there are only 8 of them.

Now, to many people casually familiar with this system they may object to some of these tenets. But, I posit that these underlying assumptions form much of the current conflict over what constitutes the qualities, capabilities, weaknesses, etc of one of these possible 16 types.

It is rather like a game of chess where there are a few basic types of pieces with allowable moves on a closed system of the chessboard. In chess, no one need look outside the game for potential types of pieces or allowable moves.