jung's 8 vs MB's 16

Skip to first unread message


Jan 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/20/97

People seem to be using Jungian Personality and MB Type interchangeably.
Maybe someone can clarify this for me.

As i understand it:

Jung's types include the four functions (T,F,N,S) and two orientations
(I,E) for a total of eight types.

Myers and Briggs come along and decide to pit the T against the F and
the N against the S and introduce P and J to wipe up the mess they
introduced by doing such!

Isn't this basically what has happened?

What else did Myers and Briggs do? Were they true genius'? Did they really
have enough insight to justify tampering with the work of one of the true
genius' of this century?


Oh, the comfort, the inexpressible comfort of feeling safe with a person;
having neither to weigh thoughts nor measure words, but to pour them all
out, just as they are, chaff and grain together, knowing that a faithful
hand will take and sift them, keep what is worth keeping, and then, with
the breath of kindness, blow the rest away . --George Eliot

doug bates

Jan 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/21/97

Basically, it goes like this....

Around 1914 Briggs developed her own personality system, which she
published and used in developing fiction (she had a best seller). Her
system looked something like the combinations of the 4 functions. She
then read Jung's Psychological Types, when it became available in English.
She recognized that she and Jung were seeing the same thing, and Jung had
done a much better job. She incorporated Jung's introversion/extraversion
into her system. Her emphasis on the auxiliary function was much greater
than Jung's, but is fundamentally in line with Jung's work. Myers
introduced the J/P scale to identify which function was dominant. It is
only in this piece of psychometric technique does the MBTI really go much
beyond Jung. It's not in conflict, but it's relatively additional. The
real "tampering" is that Myers thought a psychometric instrument could be
developed for type. Jung didn't particularly seem to think so, but I
don't think he publicly voiced an objection.

In article <edjack-2001...@max7-82.hiwaay.net>, edj...@hiwaay.net

Steve Myers

Jan 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/21/97

In alt.psychology.personality, tob wrote:
>People seem to be using Jungian Personality and MB Type interchangeably.
>Maybe someone can clarify this for me.

This is perhaps over-simplistic, but one way of viewing the
relationship between Jung and MB is:

- Jung describes the dominant function

- Myers Briggs *additionally* describes the auxiliary function

For example, Jung described one type as being introverted sensing. In
MB terminology, this means that introverted sensing is dominant (ie
ISxJ types). What MB 'adds' is that this function is supported by
extraverted thinking or feeling as the auxiliary. The mapping between
the models is:

Jung - MB
Introverted Sensing - ISTJ and ISFJ
Extroverted Sensing - ESTP and ESFP
Introverted Intuition - INTJ and INFJ
Extroverted Intuition - ENTP and ENFP
Introverted Thinking - INTP and ISTP
Extroverted Thinking - ESTJ and ENTJ
Introverted Feeling - INFP and ISFP
Extroverted Feeling - ESFJ and ENFJ

In a slightly convoluted fashion, the J/P dimension is a way of
defining, for each MB type, which is the dominant and which the
auxiliary. For an explanation of this, see

Whether this all makes MB *different* to Jung's theory is debatable.
In Gifts Differing, Isabel Briggs Myers explains how the description
of the auxiliary is derived from Jung's own writings (p18-21).
Steve Myers
Note: my 'from' address is mis-set to reduce 'spam' emails.
However, if 'reply'ing, the correct address should appear.
(non-spam emails can be sent to smy...@teamtechnology.co.uk)
Sorry for any inconvenience caused.


Jan 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/25/97

In article <32e547d4...@news.u-net.com>
remove...@teamtechnology.co.uk writes:


Besides the problem of number of types, I would like to point out
other discrepancies among Jung, Myers, and their successors.

For examlpe, though Myers found using MBTI that scientists and
engineers were likely to be INXXs (where by "X" I mean arbitrariness
rather than neutrality), Jung seems to have assigned science to
Extraverted Thinking, probably because science deals with elementary
particles, atoms, materials, time and space, and the like, all of
which exist outside the spirit of ourselves. He referred to Schiller
and Nietshce as typical INTXs.

Another discrepancy is how to interplet interest in art. Jung
suggested that the Introverted Sensate was an artistic type. For
Myers, however, the Introverted Sensate is the most conventional type,
because he or she prefers Sensing and Judging simultaneously.
According to Myers artists are more likely to be INXXs than
scientists and engineers, while some type reseacher found that those
interested in art often preferred Intuition and Perception. Kiersey
made this discrepancy be more confusing by saying that artists tended
to be XXSPs.

The discrepancies mentioned above indicates that the attitudes and
functions explained in the MBTI context do not correspond exactly to
those defined by Jung. I guess that if Jung's Introversion and
Myers's simultaneous preference to Intuition and Feeling are
equivalent to each other, the discrepancies can be less fatal.

Akitaka Sawamura

Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages