INDEX
ABOUT
FAQ
GLOSSARY
MBTI TYPINGS
MBTI RELATIONS
DISCORD
PHOTOGRAPHY
GENERAL
DIFFERENCES
TYPING
FUNCTIONS
TABLES
LISTS
WORKS
VARIOUS
NAMES
MORE
Types #17X ← ✸
On top of all the other problems in typology, there's a clear obstacle (and consequent global distortion) coming from the fact that many people who are interested in types are very young. Youth tends to imply two opposing things: on one hand an interest in finding something to belong to, identify or describe oneself with (preferences, styles, crowds, fandoms, classifications, labels, ideologies, movements, careers, etc), and on the other a more or less pronounced lack of self-knowledge and self-awareness. We want to know who/what/how we are, but we don't know it. We are confused, so we look for some certainty, but that very situation is quite slippery: how much are we really finding out and how much are we only assuming to be true?
First, in terms of dichotomies, young people don't tend to be confident in groups or in public, basically because they lack experience, and they often consider themselves outsiders (partly because of that, but also because others seem weird, we don't like them, we don't "fit in", etc), which leads to a [false] I>E tendency. The same happens with S/N. It's quite difficult for young people to see themselves as traditional instead of original, or even realistic vs imaginative, for example, so you get a lot of false "Ns" (in general, common definitions of "intuition" refer to many things that aren't N). And then a similar thing happens with J/P, too. From a broad perspective youth is more about exploring and trying things and being casual than going by principles and being systematic, planful and so on. All this extends to different ways of trying to distinguish the dichotomies, directly or indirectly, and taken all together it skews things towards "INP".
In terms of functions, one of the most widespread misconceptions about them is mistaking them for what's actually related to pairs of dichotomies ("Ti" = TP-traits, "Si" = SJ-traits, etc), so you get again the same problems. Other incorrect definitions might also have that kind of thing, but of course they or their supposed order are wrong so they are already mistyping everybody, regardless of age.
Young people are also quite prone to unconscious focus or confusion. Things are still mixed together, and they might think that their interests define their consciousness, or just have a hard time recognizing where they stand psychologically, because they are still trying to figure themselves out. Some can go from being very shy to always trying to get attention, in a few years. They can start something, totally convinced that it's "their thing", just to find out rather quickly that it isn't, at all. And it's complicated because not all changes might go in the same direction or be type-relevant.
The chance of mistype is not much lower when it's another person doing or helping with the typing. Just like the mind in itself can be mixed/confused, the observable behavior is prone to reflect that and give contradictory signals. The same happens with the various kinds of self-reporting, where there are also obstacles like insufficient perspective, the young person's [interpretation of] language having a rather narrow scope, and in some cases the limitation of having to work only with what they say about themselves.
The solution includes not only forgetting all the distortions and incorrect typology stuff, but also, quite obviously, waiting. It's a good idea to keep early self-types as speculative (and private), and recheck things periodically. If you take what's actually a self-mistype too seriously, you're very likely going to hurt yourself in some way, and probably others. Believing that you are a type other than your true one can lead you to mistake your weak points for your strengths, and vice versa. It can make you ignore the things that you need to be more careful and mindful about. It can make you more confused about yourself. It can prevent relationships from improving, or make them worse. If you talk about types you will be saying incorrect things, which in turn can generate more mistypes. Etc.
So please be careful. And be patient. Like I said before, your type isn't going anywhere, it's already a fact in you, already "working". And if the question is identifying it, what's important is knowing about the whole landscape, which implies being aware of how other people think, that is: stepping out of yourself and being exposed to remote and unfamiliar psychologies. You need to get the coordinates and the ranges right, understand conscious vs unconscious, check all the different angles of analysis, and have a wide enough perspective so that you can locate yourself in all that. This takes time, and can't be rushed. It's a complicated thing and there are no shortcuts. Even if we ignore their wrong foundations (which of course are sufficient to invalidate them), quick answers like those you get with tests or other "methodical" means can't really be trusted because there is no space for a steady and reliable analysis that's deep enough to get to the core and avoid filters like language and changing psychological states.
Some people are too emotionally influenced to be able to type themselves or someone else impartially, so the chances of doing it correctly decrease quite a lot. It can get to a point where no matter how much incompatible information is there suggesting a different type, they can't acknowledge it. Many of them would probably deny it, but they can't make a neutral analysis because their emotions keep having an effect on their conclusions. With that, it's extremely easy to misdirect the typing, in different ways, and end up with a mistype.
Perhaps you can take a moment and examine your reactions, check how do you go about these things. For example: if your personal relationship with someone changes from good to bad or vice versa and that in turn makes you change your typing of the person, that means you're not being objective about it, and your analyses are rather unreliable. You can also be wrong about someone's type but refuse to change it because your admiration or disdain for the person prevents you from reconsidering. For some people their opinion of others is a strong force, not easily altered or ignored, that tints what requires detachment, and sometimes they are quite unaware of this.
In these cases there's very often the [involuntary] revelation of a[n unconscious] type hierarchy: the newly assigned type (or the one that needs revision) is one that the person likes or dislikes more than the previous (or potential) one. Some people are definitely lumping together all kinds of types into their own ideas of "good" and "bad" types (a common tendency here is the classic "intuitive bias", where sensors are considered "inferior"). This internal ranking can also have a distorting effect on the person's self-type, of course.
Some people project their emotional slant tendency on others, assuming that they also have hierarchies, perhaps imagining various "signs" and "proofs" (when this is bilateral it can lead to veritable emotional wars disguised as "typology discussions", without a trace of actual knowledge or helpfulness, like those you can find in many type "communities"). In my case, I'm actually a bit shocked when I find them because I do precisely the opposite: I assume that others don't have internal rankings. And I might be too optimistic also in the sense that rejecting them might not be as easy for people as I think (I've seen examples where after supposedly being into typology for years there's still "X is better than Y" stuff in there).
When likes and dislikes enter a given case the typing is prone to start going astray. It doesn't matter if you have a "good" or "bad" image of a certain type or person, that's just an opinion, and you really need to forget about that when studying types or analyzing an individual's psychology. What you're doing is researching and learning, and you can't let sentiment interfere with that. If you have it, put it aside. You need to be open to reevaluations, discoveries and surprises (not just about psychology, but about how the world works, and what it contains). You don't know what kind of people you might still find in the future inside a certain type. You might be mixing or seeing several in one. You don't know if you're misinterpreting what you get from a certain person or group. You might be blowing details out of proportion, or focusing on just a limited set of traits, and undervaluing or filtering others out. You might not know everything that's relevant about them, and they might reveal new sides.
You might be wondering, what if I see someone else doing this? Well, you can state the issue, but don't make it personal, and don't escalate. It's not worth it. Tell people about the widespread misconceptions. Let them read and think. And keep looking.
The whole point of type is about knowing yourself and others better. It's about having an impartial knowledge of intrinsic differences that resolves and avoids conflicts (both internal and external), instead of worsening or creating them. If you find yourself arguing continuously about type, or because of it, or turning it into extra fuel for your value classifications, or trying to provoke people, you're not getting (nor transmitting) what you should be getting from it. Type should help balance opinions and emotional responses, not magnify them.
Jung wrote lots and lots of things, he mixed the functions and other terms in complicated ways, and his definitions changed. Many people read him and get caught up in particular textual details, without seeing the big picture. This is many times a consequence of not being able to recognize the psychic functions and their configuration by themselves. In this post I'll try to clarify a few things related to intuition and idea. In general, you'll see how his writing makes much more sense when you keep in mind his own type: INTJ (Ti-Ni-Se-Fe).
1. INTUITION AS "PERCEPTION VIA THE UNCONSCIOUS"
When Jung says that intuition is "perception via the unconscious" he's simply referring to the fact that conscious intuition implies unconscious sensation (cN = uS). Having one side of sensation (e or i) in the unconscious means that the other side is reflected as a ghost in consciousness, for example gSi3 coming from Se3 (check the diagrams in post #140). That ghostly sensation is what Jung takes as a manifestation of intuition, calling it "perception", but when he talks like that he isn't really pointing at the essence of the function (sometimes he even seems to confuse himself and call "intuition" to all kinds of G3←X3 and G4←X4 transferences). In fact, Jung admits that his definition of intuition is "somewhat makeshift, and in fact a declaration of scientific bankruptcy", because he's actually using elements of another function (S) and only referring to intuition in an indirect way. His definition is basically the same as saying that feeling is "thinking via the unconscious" (cF = uT).
This is important for several reasons. One of them is that lots of people keep mistaking the mere graphic imagery of visions and dreams as the essence of introverted intuition, when it's not (I've talked about this before, for example in post #178). Others mistake it for abstract concepts, which is like going one step further in the wrong direction, because now you're involving Ti. Others mistake intuition in general with non-thinking, which can actually be about feeling, etc. The essence of intuition isn't any of that, not the concepts, or the non-thinking, or the imagery, or the sounds, or anything with form, or anything that's in itself a representation. You have to consider how presence (S) and absence (N) complement each other, how you can point at S-elements but not at N ones, etc. Jung himself says elsewhere that intuition is an "awareness of relationships".
The difference between Si and Ni might be easier to understand if you think first about the difference between Se and Ne, which I'm assuming is less difficult to see (although some people are still going to confuse gSe with Ne, for example). Se is obviously about what's out there, right now, for everybody, what has a physical presence, visually, sonically, etc, with all its shapes, textures and details, so Ne can't be about that. Ne is about the relations between things, the links and possibilities in that moment, the potential. You can't really feel or touch or see Ne-elements like you feel and hear the wind, or see a tree. (I think the closest to an Ne-related presence would be things like the force of gravity: not the sensation or experience of it, but the power that it has, its ability to change the situation). Ne is not the name or identification of things, either. It's not a structure or a concept. Ne doesn't have form and it's not a representation. You can try to represent it, for example drawing arrows between objects, but Ne isn't those arrows, either.
Now for Si and Ni you just have to translate that to the internal world. I say "just" but this might be very hard to grasp for many people because they have been drinking some wrong definitions kool-aid for too long. If you are one of those victims, you need a period of detoxification (the comparison is not as exaggerated as it seems), which includes unlearning what you thought you knew, and start using the terms correctly.
You could say that Ne and gSe (or Ni and gSi) are the same thing, because they always go together (they imply each other via the corresponding proper sensation function), but just like you wouldn't say that Se and Ni are the same, even if they also imply each other (in this case directly), you have to understand that Ne and gSe (or Ni and gSi) are different things. This kind of inescapable implication is a bit like the two poles of a magnet: the magnet in itself is one item, but you can't say that the north pole is the same as the south one.
Sometimes people try to "retrieve" proper elements from ghost locations. One way that this is done is between the functions at the same level of consciousness, although other functions are often involved as well, for example X1 when it's X2←G3 (the two unconscious eclipses are also an involuntary/automatic form of this). In a sense X2←G3 is the best altitude for this kind of thing because it's all conscious but the locations are not disconnected like X1-G4. In fact, Jung worked there a lot, as part of dream interpretation: he tried to extract or extrapolate the Ni(2)-archetype[s] from the (g)Si(3)-imagery of dreams, all from the perspective of Ti(1). The second part of this post is related to that.
2. ON JUNG'S DEFINITION OF "IDEA"
TL;DR: Sometimes Jung uses the word "idea" to indicate a Ti1-element (something that "exists a priori, as a given possibility for thought-combinations in general"), sometimes it's Ti1+gSi3 (when he uses it "promiscuously with primordial image" or as "the primordial image intellectually formulated"), and sometimes Ti1+Ni2 (when he relates it to "meaning"). He gives various complex and apparently contradictory descriptions, but that's a good summary of what's happening: he's mixing his own Ti1+Ni2+gSi3 in different ways.
Thinking tells you what something is, and feeling if it's acceptable or not. They don't tell you its meaning or reason for being. When Jung relates thinking and feeling to "meaning", saying for example that the "idea" is the "meaning" that "has been abstracted from the concretism of the image", he's doing one of two things (or both):
a) He's referring to the identification or evaluation of something perceived first through sensation (more specifically [g]Si, an "inner image"), that is: a rather weird way of saying "what is that", from the perspective of his own type (= Ti1+gSi3) or someone like Freud (who was Fi1+gSi3 instead). This would fit "the rational elaboration to which the primordial image is subjected to fit it for rational use", and the "static images given us by thinking" reality aspect definition.
b) He's talking about a particular Ni2-meaning translated through Ti1 from gSi3-elements, precisely what he'd do in dream interpretation, including the identification of the archetype[s] (Ni) corresponding to a particular inner image (Si). In this case that "meaning" would actually be introverted intuition described from a thinking perspective. Jung says that the "idea" is "the formulated meaning of a primordial image", that is: a "meaning" expressed in systematic terms or concepts (Ti1>Ni2).
This explains why he writes that the primordial image (Si) is "a visual thing" with "mythological character", and the idea "a product of thought" "lacking in visual qualities" (Ti). Then with the added meaning he's moved from Si to Ni, always from the perspective of Ti1. The process image→idea→meaning reflects his gSi3→Ti1→Ni2, and it would be an example of an entirely conscious ghost→proper translation, interpretation or decoding, mediated by and always in the context of the dominant function: X1(G3→X2). It could include a question like "what does this dream mean?" = how does this gSi3 translate into Ni2? or: what kind of Ni2 does this gSi3 represent? The answer would always be based on Ti1-concepts.
So why doesn't he mention intuition? Well, that might be because he's mixing his Ti1 with his Ni2 in some places, as if they were just one thing. An important factor in all this is that Jung was a bit confused about his own auxiliary. In a 1925 lecture he identified himself as Ti1-Si2-Ne3-Fe4 (which would be ISTJ): "thinking and sensation were uppermost in me and intuition and feeling were in the unconscious", adding that "the preliminary conflict would be between sensation and intuition" (common for J types). He has a tendency to explain Ni in terms of Si (which is gSi for him), and he's kind of obsessed with the graphic aspect, with representations of the archetypes, focusing on his gSi3-Se3. Maybe that's why he believed his auxiliary was sensation for a while. I think the text in the "idea" definition (and in other parts of the book) reflects that he doesn't fully realize how intuition is more exactly his Ni2, and not gSi3. This might still be his way of looking at or just describing things when he later identifies as Ti1>Ni2 (INTJ, his actual type). Even before that there are clear indications of his auxiliary Ni in many other things that he writes. (See also point 18 in post #170).
Lots of people don't seem to understand the most basic things about type, so I thought it could be a good idea to go over some of them. Most of what I cover in this post I have already talked about before, but there are also new things, with the general issue here being a rather popular tendency to indulge in all kinds of exceptions, customizations and outlandish reinterpretations, which reminds me of that "you can be whoever you want" nonsense. Both the prevalence of faulty concepts everywhere and various degrees of psychological shortsightedness prevent many people from taking this seriously, because everything feels like hocus-pocus to them, so they think "hey, I can invent things, too" (and liars bring more lies).
1. TYPE
A lot of people don't even know what "type" means. A type is not an individual, obviously. A type is a gigantic group of people with the same general characteristics, inside of which you can find individual differences (and type variants) but not typical differences. There can't be as many types as individuals, otherwise what are you even doing (I say this because people sometimes seem to expect that their type has to explain every single detail about them and fit them like a glove). And then of course there can't be more types than individuals (this might also seem an exaggeration but I've seen at least one example of a "typology expert" who claimed exactly that).
Also, a type is not a state. Your psychological and emotional state can change, your interests and your [self-]knowledge can change, your circumstances and your relationships can change, your occupation and your goals can change, but your type doesn't change.
Some people like to combine all sorts of "typologies" (perhaps looking for that special and unique license plate), but when you consider the amount of misconceptions about the most basic things just in MBTI, it really makes you doubt the usefulness and even the validity of all that, and it makes you think about the underlying pretension of being able to understand not only the 16 MBTI types but all the rest on top of that. I suppose many cases are just people who take lots of tests and don't stop to actually check/learn for themselves.
2. MANIFESTATIONS
When it comes to typing themselves or someone else, it seems that some people ignore behavior completely, almost as if it couldn't originate from cognition, which has to be analyzed "in a vacuum" or something. Yes, we know that a particular item of behavior can come from different types, but that's about isolated and very general things that many people [can] do, not about a combination of meaningful aspects and traits that contribute to a more rounded and genuine picture of the person. That's very valuable information, and it can help enormously in typing.
Consider what happens when you only have the subject's words about his/her thoughts. First of all, those can be extremely convoluted, they can include half-ideas and ideas taken from other people, they can omit crucial parts and exaggerate minor ones, they can describe things and use words in distorted ways, etc. People can think an endless variety of thoughts, about all kinds of topics. They can think about their thinking and engage in very elaborate mental acrobatics. In the case of [famous] authors their written work might be focused exclusively on one topic that's not necessarily indicative of their type, and making that kind of inference can lead to lots of mistypes (like saying that all scientists are "T", all poets "F", or things like that).
Overreliance on the subject's internal workings assumes an objectivity and a self-awareness that the person simply might not have. Jung warned against looking only at behavior, but he also said that "In respect of one's own personality one's judgment is as a rule extraordinarily clouded", and he did mention various features of behavior as typing data. Also, I think it's important to remember the famous saying: actions speak louder than words (some sayings aren't true, I know, but this one ties in very well).
Some people might discard behavior if they share that misconception about the functions where they are confused with our train of thought or with something that amounts to different ways of Thinking. The functions are much more than that. They are fundamental aspects of reality, and the reason they appeared is basically the same that gave us eyes in response to light. So in a sense the functions are everywhere, and the way people interact with the world can tell you a lot about them. I'm not saying it's easy, of course, but restricting observation to the inner side when you can also get information about the outer is unncessarily limited, risky and, well, one-sided.
So, don't forget: you have to look at both things, cognition and behavior. (I say "cognition" because that's how people tend to divide things: thought vs action, but I'm actually including everything about the mind there, conscious and unconscious. Jung used that word only for T and F, basically as a synonym of judgment, in contrast with perception, which would be S and N, of course).
3. LETTERS
Many people disregard the letters and take them basically like random names for collections of functions. This is a bit like entering a vehicle blindfolded and not knowing whether you're driving a car, a bus, a boat, a bulldozer, a submarine, a helicopter, an airplane, a train, or a truck. The result? Lots of accidents, obviously, some of them rather catastrophic. But because this is about psychology and language, the disaster is not evident, it's hidden, insidious and treacherous. It makes people less aware, and language more meaningless. And it destroys the capacity to understand things better.
Ignoring the letters is ignoring the only thing about the official MBTI that's actually validated by the statistics, and then imagining all kinds of fantasies with the supposedly "deeper functions". They might not know it, but for many using the false "eiei/ieie" order those "functions" are actually references to traits already represented by combinations of 2 letters (what they think about "Ti" is what T+P means, their "Se" is S+P, etc), not the real Jungian functions. Using them exclusively, without the letters, might result in a correct typing but makes it difficult to distinguish between E and I (none of those "functions" refers to the first letter). And in the context of mistaken definitions that could be seen as a sort of best-case scenario, because what others do is even worse.
Some people dismiss the letters because they think they are "too black-and-white", when there's actually a granularity in them which is not that hard to understand. Each letter dichotomy marks the two extremes of a spectrum: E--------I, S--------N, T--------F, and J--------P, so for example the degree of extraversion is not the same for all Es. Even without the facets that should be something very easy to see.
So, yeah. The letters are a very meaningful and juicy level of description, and when you realize how the real functions match them you have two really substantial layers of information, not just one.
4. FUNCTIONS
The functions are not pieces of a construction set that you can pick up and place however you like as long as they kinda sorta look a bit like the model on the box cover. They aren't tools or skills that you can choose and improve independently, as if you were leveling up your custom multi-class character in some RPG.
This is extremely important, and if you can't see it you simply aren't talking about types. The whole foundation from which we talk about a psychological type is that the functions that occupy the various function locations (dominant, auxiliary, etc) are the same for everybody with that type, and they stay the same. The functions can't occupy random places, and they don't move. There are countless individual differences within a given type, but that comes from many other factors, not from the function order, which is literally what makes the type a type.
Example: all ISFJs have dominant Fi (X1=Fi1), auxiliary Si (X2=Si2), tertiary Ne (X3=Ne3), and inferior Te (X4=Te4). That's the only way that an introverted feeler can have auxiliary sensation. If the auxiliary is intuition then you get a different type: an INFJ, which is Fi1-Ni2-Se3-Te4. There is no other function that can serve Fi, so there are no more types with dominant Fi. Just two. The same happens with the other 7 functions, so you get 8x2=16 possible combinations = the 16 types. And that's it.
The other side of the proper functions (which would be Fe, Se, Ni and Ti for ISFJ) are the ghost functions, and they have their places, too, but they aren't random or free to choose, either. They aren't "lower" than the proper ones or mixed with them in some 1-to-8 customizable order (that's what many people seem to think). You have to understand how they occupy places alongside the proper ones, going again from most conscious (G4 = gTi4 for ISFJ, at the same level as X1), to most unconscious (G1 = gFe1 for ISFJ, at the same level as X4). And that doesn't really translate into a neat sequence of 8. It's more complicated than that because there are lots of interrelations between the various function locations. That's where all kinds of complex things happen, what creates a lot of confusion when one reads Jung (because he only refers to the ghosts indirectly), where the analysis truly goes deeper, and where you keep discovering things.
Just like Jung took consciousness as a standpoint for description (instead of the unconscious), he also took the proper functions instead of the ghost ones. That's of course the best way to do it, because the proper functions are what really defines the type, what the person ultimately considers true. He alludes to the four proper locations (X1>X2·X3<X4) several times, for example here: "During a practical analysis you can observe an extremely interesting transition from the differentiated function to its auxiliary function and from this to its counter-function and thence to the undifferentiated or inferior function".
5. MISTYPES
I don't think most people realize how pervasive mistypes are. One factor there is of course the unfortunate reinforcing consequence of being themselves mistyped, which is very likely. Lots and lots of people believe they are a type that isn't theirs. There's just too much chaos and confusion and superficiality and distortions and inventions and biases. In a way it's like a free-for-all, so in many cases type ends up being just a subjective image that people create of themselves and others, misusing all kinds of terms, without any connection to real psychology.
The huge amount of mistypes makes type-related terms meaningless, and impedes learning and communication. When people are exposed to different types identifying as "INFJ", for example, there is no chance for any reliable connection between the words and reality (not just "INFJ" but also "introvert", "intuitive", etc). It would be like seeing all the vehicles from point 3 being called "helicopter", for example (*slaps roof of car* this bad boy has a hover ceiling of 3,807 m).
If you use type terms without explaining everything at the same time (like I do here) many people are going to misunderstand what you say (and even then, right?), because they probably have a different definition in mind. And in the same way, when you find articles or some kind of type statistic, you have to take it, at best, with a whole bottle of salt, or even discard it completely, because the background information might be all wrong. So, of course, it's all a disaster.
6. JUNGIAN
Many people love quoting Jung and using his terms and saying "Jungian functions" or "Jungian types". It's like some kind of free renown seal. The problem is that, most of the time, it's fake, and the person is just insulting him and ruining his work. Most function definitions out there aren't Jungian, the "eiei/ieie" order is not Jungian, the "eiii/ieee" and the "eeei/ieee" orders are not Jungian, things like "loops" or "jumpers" are not Jungian, Socionics is not Jungian, an "indeterminate auxiliary" is not Jungian, etc.
Just because someone writes "intuitive" or "Ti" or "Ne" doesn't mean [s]he has the slightest idea about what those terms really are. There is a surprisingly high number of ways in which people misunderstand Jung, so high that sometimes it kind of feels intentional. Like they don't even care or respect his work. And it's not even about him, of course, the facts are there in any case, but he was the one who saw them and started checking everything (history, philosophy, poetry, biography, etc), describing the functions and the types, and he gave us an incredibly deep and insightful view of the psyche, something absolutely remarkable because it puts you in touch with the universal and the very soul of people. In order to maintain that level of insight you have to be extremely careful and able to see what he saw. You can't just say whatever you like, without keeping the right connection to the psychological facts.
The MBTI is based on Jung's work and it does a rather good job identifying the types and describing them with the letter dichotomies. The main point in all of these posts (since day one) is that the popular functions that the MBTI uses are wrong, and they need to be fixed. This is not about creating anything new, it's about replacing an incorrect understanding with a correct one. If you see a lot of people saying that hydrogen has 2 protons you don't invent a new "chemistry system" where you rename everything. What you do is tell them that they are doing chemistry wrong. This is the same. This is how the MBTI should be.
Many types mistype as "INFJ", of course, but I think you could say the "INFJ"-ISTJ one is a bit special. There's not only the fact of its outrageous ubiquity, but how it also brought about others (like "Ti-doms" who are actually Ni-dom, or some "ISTJ"-INFJs), and how it sometimes feels like it stands right at the center of many other MBTI misconceptions. So I think it could be a good place to concentrate some attention.
1. EXAMPLE OF AN ISTJ MISTYPED AS "INFJ"
The other day I read someone's definition of "INFJ", and it was very clearly a misconception. The writer seemed to have a somewhat correct grasp of what Ti and Fe are, but not of Ni, Se, the function locations or the dominant>auxiliary relationship. Then of course he was misled by the nonexistent "eiei/ieie" order. I'm pretty sure it was the case of a mistyped ISTJ (Ti-Si-Ne-Fe). ISTJ is one of the types that most commonly mistype as "INFJ" (see post #177 and post #178, for example), so of course you're going to get the widespread idea that "INFJs" are "often mistaken for thinking types". A key point in all this is thinking about dominant Ti as if it were "tertiary Ti".
These are some quotes from the text:
- When he thinks he's talking about "Ni" and "Fe" he says that "INFJs" "narrow their focus to possibilities that truly serve their goals or community" or the "greater good", but serving is literally what the auxiliary does in relation to the dominant. The writer doesn't seem to notice that he's saying it backwards, and he's also talking about possibilities, which is much more Ne than Ni, so he's actually thinking about Fe>Ne, probably Ne3<Fe4, that is: ISTJ's unconscious functions. (What these mistyped ISTJs think about "converging" is what they could try and translate into Thinking, if they want to know what real Ti3 might be like).
- Then he says that "INFJs" "require very explicit and thorough instructions and frameworks", which points to Ti1, not "tertiary Ti", which INFJs don't have (their funtions are Fi-Ni-Se-Te). It also goes against what being NF means, and sounds quite (S)TJ. Ideas like inner structure, scrupulosity and thoroughness are very much part of Jung's definition of Ti1 (ITJ). (Another common ISTJ mistype is "INTP", still wrong, but at least here it seems that they recognize their dominant).
- The writer says that "INFJs have this chameleon-like ability to blend into a room's emotional vibe using their auxiliary Extraverted Feeling (Fe) while also maintaining their distance from unwanted or insignificant people", which seems to be a reference to Fe4 (unconciously taking the "vibe" from outside) and Ti1 (keeping one's distance at the same time). The inferior function is the most collective location, and, in cases without pronounced antagonism, it's where/what/how the individual connects or shares with everybody, everywhere, everywhen ("in our inferiority we are linked up with mankind").
- He also says that "INFJs" want "to find the absolute safest, best course of action, to the point sometimes of getting stuck in analysis paralysis and missing the opportunity entirely". This is again a very ISTJ thing to do (or just I>E in general, not specific to any I). It paints the picture of a very conscientious and safety-minded person (SJ) who looks at every detail (S>N), and can get stuck thinking about things. The quote really fits how Ti1 "thinks out his problems to the limit" and can get "entangled" (also S, not N). In fact, it's Ne3 that makes both ISJs careful and planful about courses of action.
2. NOT AN ISOLATED CASE AT ALL
Unfortunately, this mistaken "INFJ" image seems to be everywhere. Recently I've seen another example with a supposed "INFJ" character who's "obsessed with the "correctness" of the theory itself", and looks for "universal concepts", all of that sounding really Ti1. It's easy to find people who associate "intuition" in general with being "intellectual", "scientific", "analytical" and "strategic", which is basically all T, or at best NT, but totally not N by itself.
There's also a tendency to talk about "Ni" as a "narrowing of possibilities". This is partly related to mistaking the function for N+J, but also something that (as seen above) matches ISJs' Ne3 (both misconceptions share that twisting J aspect added to what's a perceiving function). The idea of "narrowing" is perfectly suited for the tertiary, because it can't go against the inferior, so it might be considered dangerous, and the person might keep it at bay and make only cautious and localized attempts at it, testing the waters carefully without committing.
Another point would be that what these "INFJs" interpret as "inferior Se" is actually a mix of introversion and ISTJ's gSe2. The general idea of "living in the moment" is just something much easier for extraverts than introverts. The E/I contrast here is close to relevancy vs timelessness. Then you have G2's ghostly quality + pulling-away effect, which in this case make Se-reality seem distant and less authentic than the subject's inner experience (Si2).
Most of those misconceptions give the impression of coming from someone that just hasn't taken the time to check what Jung said. It's hard to believe how someone can read Jung's description of Ni and think that people like Plato (for example) fit in there, and not in Ti. Jung himself mentioned Plato's "beautiful world of ideas" (Jung always points at Ti when he says 'idea'), writing that "Plato's thinking abstracted and created synthetic constructive concepts" (concepts is of course another keyword for Ti, and the phrase is perfectly fitting for Ti1+Si2), or how "with Plato it is just the ideas that have eternal and immutable validity, while the "real" and the "many" are merely their fugitive reflections" (nicely appropriate for Ti1+Si2+gSe2, the term "fugitive" being quite suitable for a ghost function).
Also, if someone like Plato has only "tertiary Ti" (there are still 2 whole functions better than that in their supposed "INFJ"), what would be someone from his time with dominant Ti? How much more can anyone be about ideas and concepts? People that do this are just completely ignorant of the function locations, of what the unconscious means, etc. How is Plato an artist or a crank? Or misunderstood? Or a simpleton, with arguments that lack the power of reason? Where is his uncertainty, or his inability to communicate? Do you even know how to read?
So, yeah. From "Plato INFJ" you can extrapolate many other mistypes of (similar) famous thinkers and philosophers, and yes, "typology experts", too 🙄 (just imagine how objectively are those describing things).
3. AND IT KEEPS GOING
I suspect a big part of the blame lies on the way tests are constructed, including (perhaps especially, if others take it as the "standard") the official one. That official MBTI test is (supposedly) reflecting their facets, and those can be very misleading. It's easy to imagine an ISTJ looking at the S/N section and choosing all 5 Ns. Introversion alone can be considered abstract, conscious Si can be very imaginative, Ti is by definition the most theoretical and conceptual function, and Jung even mentions "originality" for ITJs. It's a bit harder that they see themselves as F>T, but it's possible, especially if they are moderately cordial and respectful, and/or if they restrict the analysis to their inner circle.
Like I said in the previous post, the huge amount of mistypes causes more mistypes because people recognize themselves in mistyped people and famous figures (or characters), and repeat the arguments taking their validity for granted. Snowball effect.
Types #17X ← ✸