I have seen a lot of contention abounding in Myers-Briggs communities about what is or isn’t correct about a type based on a description of that type, but the bottom-line is how does anyone know if it is correct or not?
In order to know this you would have had to find a way to identify every representative of that type in a relatively irrefutable way. The MBTI has a notorious inability to do this.
But, even more, is the problem of the lack of theoretical validation about what the basic components of this system are? What is a function? How can we tell how it is manifesting in a person or even if it is? How do we even know that it exists objectively? For example, we know that a person is composed mostly of water. This is a fact and can be proved. We know what water is and we know what people are composed of on a physical level because we have ways of measuring these things.
However, scientifically speaking, we don’t know if there is any such thing as an ego or a dominant function. When I say science I am speaking in the terms of materialistic-empirical science. Something must be physically measurable to be accorded validity to science. The trouble is that a psyche is not a physical entity.
And so from the very start we don’t have any material proof that any of these things are real. But, what is reality? Is the intuitive real? Well, it may actually be more real than the physical realm (sensory reality), but science of the sort I mention will not accord the intuitive any reality unless it can materialize. Since it is the opposite of sensory reality and therefore can’t exist in material existence, science cannot validate it according to its own methods.
There is another form of scientific validation known as mathematics and logic. There is a possibility of according this theory of personality types a scientific validity here if one could assign a function such as intuition or sensation to a number of some sort. And if that number when interacting with another number always got the same result then there might be some scientific basis to type theory. This is a thinking function thing.
However, there are no stable definitions of the functions. Anyone can write a description of these function and no one can prove that they are wrong. They can state that they are wrong, but cannot prove it.
There is also statistics which is another form of scientific validation but in order for that to have merit you would have to have a stable indicator of type and stable definitions about what the components of that type are. And neither of those two things exist. The MBTI is not a reliable indicator of type, and, even if it were reliable, it still might be wrong because of the lack of objective validity about what a type or function is. This test was designed taking into account Jung’s definitions but where did Jung get them from? What is intuition? What is feeling? What is orientation towards the object? What is an object? What is judgment? What is perception? Are these categories real? Do they exist? Did Jung come up with them? Did he get them from some other unknown system? None of this is known.
The MBTI is testing for those things but how do we know that the items on that test are really testing for those categories if they weren’t stably defined in the first place (Jung didn’t have stable definitions).
For example, a person could come up with the definition of what a zebra is by saying it is a four-legged animal of the equestrian variety that is primarily distinguished by having black and white stripes in alternating patterns. There are other zebras that don’t have black and white stripes. Yet, they are still zebras. Fucking imposter zebras, but, zebras nonetheless. You see the problem with zebras? They are unreliable.
Now, if we said zebra = 1 then that would be a much more stable definition. If zebra always equaled 1 and 1 was always had the same definition, then we would have a stable definition for what zebra is.
But as soon as we get into describing qualities and not quantities, there is so much grey area. As soon as we say that a zebra has black and white stripes we would have to ask ourselves what is the definition of black and white. How black? Pitch black? How white? Solid white? Off-white? And that is only the beginning of our troubles, I assure you.
Now, we know what 1 is because we created the definition for what it is. 1 is when there are no other members of a particular class present to be counted. However, we did not create blackness or whiteness. But, we can define these colors mathematically by saying that black falls at a certain numerical range in the electromagnetic spectrum and the same with white. We can assign proportional values to where they fall on this spectrum. And I think the important thing here is that they are on a spectrum such that we know if we go up in frequency we will eventually reach a particular color and if we go down by this many degrees we will eventually get another color. It is predictable.
Well, so far, no one has made these assignments for the Jungian functions and definitions. The only thing that we know for sure, by stable definition, is that the two perceiving functions of sensation and intuition are opposites, the two judging functions of feeling and thinking are opposites, and introversion and extraversion are opposites.
What is intuition? It seems in many cases to be defined as everything that sensation isn’t. Fine, so, what is sensation? I understand it to mean everything that can be apprehended via the five senses of sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch. If anything can be perceived via these portals, then it can be classed as belonging to the realm of sensation.
I think this is a relatively good definition.
Another problem in this system is that we know, by definition, that sensation is opposite to intuition. But, what about the relationship of sensation to feeling, for example? The only thing that could be said about this is that these two aren’t opposites and therefore can operate simultaneously. But, that just leaves a lot of questions about their natural relationship, doesn’t it? Fine, they don’t conflict with each other, so how then do they interact with each other? In theory, I mean. I know there are a lot of descriptions of types that purport to describe this but how do they know if we don’t know what the natural relationship of sensation to feeling is? Aren’t a lot of assumptions being made?
Well, yes, they are. And that is the way it is. There are a ton of descriptions of the functions and the 16 types yet many of these people don’t even know what the natural relationship of one function to another is.
Perhaps many of these writers of type descriptions are forming their descriptions off of mass results of the MBTI. But, again, this test is not only unreliable, it may be testing for categories that are erroneously defined. In other words, it may just be Isabel Myers interpretation of what Jung meant by his definitions of the basic categories of perception, judgment, intuition, introversion etc. But, since Jung didn’t rigorously specify what each of those categories was in any scientifically objective sense, how are we to know that this indicator is even testing for what Jung was talking about.
The answer is we don’t. Not in the scientific sense. So, we can just dispense with science and appeals to it. Because Myers-Briggs isn’t scientific in the manner of the Western empirical scientific method. It seems somewhat scientific to be sure. But, when it comes down to it, it isn’t.
So, moving on.
The real gist of the matter is that this personality typing system, which goes back to Jung, appeals to people’s imaginations and seems to have truth in it somehow. But truth can, and often does, exist outside of what science will accept as truth.
A better question might be to ask, “What is truth?”
Is scientific truth the only form of truth? If you think this, why? What is the danger of using a system that can’t be proven scientifically? What is the danger of allowing science to dictate what is true or not? It may turn out in the future that this system can be proven by materialist science. Should we wait for this? If so, why? It seems in the Myers-Briggs system that the categories of thinking and sensation pretty much deal with what science will recognize as valid in some way. What about the categories of intuition and feeling? Are you waiting for science to prove what feelings are in order to accord them validity? Doesn’t this show a certain bias function-wise? What if scientists came out with findings that proved that feelings don’t exist and therefore should be disregarded on the basis of them being distortions of the truth? Would this change your attitude towards your own and other’s feeling natures?
What do you think of keirsey’s twist on Jungs and Myers theory? I hear you talk about Myers Briggs a lot, so I was just wondering.
I think that if the government or some such institution decided that feelings didn’t exist that people would act accordingly. People would disregard irrational thoughts and maybe there would be some ‘Rebels’ who still believed in it, but it’s like with anything. Conditioning and such plays a major role in our beliefs and how we live our lives.
Kiersey and Myers Briggs is taught in colleges… So it’s kind of accepted. Is there a system or thought that you find to be more accurate?
I think Kiersey is cool primarily for his division of the 16 types into the four different categories of NT, NF, SP, and SJ. That was his major contribution to Jung/Myers-Briggs and it is indispensable and very insightful. Simple too. The best things are.
Now, onto your supposition that people would rebel if the government/some institution told people that feelings didn’t exist. Yeah, you’re probaly right. Most people would be sheep-like and probaly come to believe that. If you ask me, the scientific establishment has already done this to some extent. In Western culture there is a current distrust of feeling imperatives and the thinking function has been raised to a state of the sole method of the determination of truth. But, I think that each realm has its own form of truth. The word “truth” comes from the greek word for “tree” and the Greeks had some pretty irrational thoughts. Like the creation of the god Dionysus as a way to account for the irrational in existence.
Yes, you are right about conditioning playing a big role in the way we see things and what we believe or are predisposed to believe. The way I see it whatever got to you first has a major role in determining what you believe.
Is there a system of thought besides Myers-Briggs that I find to be more accurate?
No, not really. The categories that are used in this system seem to me to be the most accurate representations of reality at a very deep and profound level. Not to mention that it is fun as hell. Never had more fun in my life with the possible exception of music.
I think you are right
Anything that can’t be measured, seen or touched is ruled as absurd (religion and the like)… Even morality to a certain extent
particularly by certain members of the scientific community.
In your opinion, what truth can be found in feelings?
“In your opinion, what truth can be found in feelings?”
I’d think the only truth that can be found in feelings is that those are the feelings of that person. What else could you possibly derive from them? Am I missing something?
No, that is the essence of subjective truth. That person feels it. Therefore, it is true for them.
Daniel, if you don’t mind me asking, what type are you?
His type is “takes a long time to answer what his type is.”
To reply to his question of what truth there is in feelings (actually Tiffany’s question originally), I would say the whole truth of the world can reside in one person’s feelings. If they are a faithful enough mirror.
That’s beautiful… ^_^
To a friend who is very doubtful of Myers Briggs, I try and tell him that more than anything, it’s simply a tool. And a tool I believe in.
After reading a few of your articles, I wonder: why nothing on ENFP’s? Especially since you focus so much on INFJ’s and have written on all the other intuitives?
OK, since you asked so nicely, I just wrote an article on ENFPs just for you.
Hey, Blake, wonderful stuff.
Can you speak at all how Si is at the core of this?
Thanks. Come again with the “Si at core of this” thing. I’m not understanding what you’re asking. The core of what?
Hey, Blake, sorry for the late reply. I just meant that Isabel Myers and Kiersey (sp?) both are Si types so their descriptions ingest and internalize details in that particular Si way.
I know an ESTJ girl who does not resemble the ESTJ as described by Myers or Kiersey, yet at the same time she can’t believe she’s an ESTJ because she “isn’t like that”.
It is my understanding that Isabel Myers was an INFP and David Keirsey was an INTP, at least according to themselves. I disagree that Keirsey was an INTP, same as I disagree that Jung was an INTP (or an INFJ, which he definitely wasn’t). I think Kiersey was an ISTP same as Jung. Now, because of the whole SP category that either Keirsey or his father came up with, and the way this category is commonly understood to mean Artisan types rather than intellectuals, conceptualists or thinkers, people that are superficially versed in this whole business, vehemently protest this ISTP assignment to Jung.
However, an ISTP is a dominant thinking type (same as INTP) with auxiliary extraverted sensation. Yes, if you just take those two functions into account it might not seem to stand that a great thinker like Jung had a sensation preference over intuition. But, it doesn’t really work like that if you just look at the four-letter type codes. There is this little thing called the tertiary function and ISTPs have introverted intuition in this position. And I’m going to tell you something – ISTPs are superior psychologists to INTPs. As a matter of fact, INTPs tend to be lousy psychologists, or at least, highly muddled ones.
Anyway, to address your question, yes, I think Isabel Myers system is highly steeped in her tertiary Si preference and the prevailing descriptions of the 16 types are her work. If you look at the direction that other interpreters of Jung’s work on Psychological Types have taken his system, you will see a difference in descriptions of the basic functions, and by extension, the full-scale types.
It all goes back to the lack of stable definitions of the basic elements of the original system/theory of Jung. So, positing that there is such a thing as personality/temperament differences and given that there is no stable definition of the basic elements of the system of personality types, it follows that each interpreter of those basic elements would give them their own slant on the matter depending on their predisposition to take in certain kinds of information and exclude others and so on.
Okay, maybe I should actually look at Keirsey before I open my mouth or take his word for it. I agree with you on Jung, and your other points, for that matter. But I’m still wondering what an INTP is good at other than preserving bowties as a cutting edge fashion statement? 😉
Hello from East Asia, Blake! I’ve been lurking in your website for quite sometime now and I just want to thank you for your unique (and I daresay more accurate) insights about the different personality types especially about us INFJs. Like many other INFJs reading your posts, you helped me sort out a long of things about myself and how I relate to the world in general. Your numerous advice on how to feel more whole and happy is invaluable and for that, I’m so grateful.
By any chance, are you going to ever write about ISFPs? Is an INFJ woman ever a good match for an ISPF?
Yes, I will write about ISFPs at some point. Yes, an INFJ woman is sometimes a good match for an ISFP. I would look at more than just the type theory. For example, do you like this person and does the other person like you. If so, you got yourself a relationship. Does that mean it will be a good relationship? Depends on the consciousness of both parties. In general is this pairing good? I’d say there is something maternal/sexual about it from the INFJs side. ISFPs are the natural mother to INFJ. It isn’t an equal relationship in theory. I think INFJs like ISFPs more than ISFPs like them back. But, there will be exceptions and of course other factors beyond type theory at play, so I don’t like to make judgments based just on type. Though, that is the type part of it. ISFPs will tend to have a higher/more charged status in the relationship. ISFPs don’t tend to feel as strongly about INFJs as INFJs feel about them.