Fundamentals

🧱

Type Fundamentals Guide

Guide Contents

PART I: INTRODUCTION TO TYPE

Most people are introduced to Carl Jung’s personality theory through MBTI websites. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is a trademarked psychological assessment tool that was devised by Katharine Cook Briggs and Isabel Briggs Myers. Having studied Jung’s theory of psychological types, they believed that his ideas were worthy of a wider audience and sought to refine them for practical purposes. There have been many others who have tried to interpret Jung’s personality theory. This often causes confusion for newbies because they aren’t aware of Jung’s original theory, the many ways his theory has been interpreted, and the subsequent conflicts that have arisen between different researchers. While Jung did not live to see all of the later developments of his theory, the evidence suggests that he did NOT approve of using his personality theory to “stick labels on people”, which is unfortunately how it has been used at times.

With the popularity of the MBTI system, many websites have popped up to assess people, sometimes for a fee and/or with the help of officially “certified” individuals. It is worth noting that the MBTI system is, in many ways, an oversimplification of Jung’s theory, which means that it is limited in what it can teach you about personality. The MBTI system doesn’t assess people using Jung’s cognitive functions because Myers and Briggs aimed to create shortcuts that would simplify the assessment process, which is how they came to create the four-letter personality codes that most people are familiar with. In my opinion, the MBTI system is very prone to assessment errors due to its lack of depth, as it ignores very important concepts in the name of practicality. Knowing the four letters of your type won’t bring you many benefits if you don’t know what to do with that information beyond feeling momentarily validated by a short type description. Since most people are familiar with the MBTI codes, this guide uses them as an entryway into explaining some basic concepts of Jung’s theory.

❓

Why Self-Report Questionnaires Are Imperfect

The MBTI uses a series of questions for assessing the likelihood of being a particular type. The instrument has achieved popularity in corporate circles but academic researchers in psychology have questioned its scientific validity and reliability. While people generally believe that Jung’s type categories correspond to some real-world differences in personality, the MBTI is NOT considered a scientifically reliable measure of those categories.

Test results only tell you, very roughly, what types you COULD be, that is, they only measure probability and provide you with a good starting point. If you are familiar with psychology and how researchers use psychometric instruments, you will know that they are never the final answer, rather, they are mainly used to point professionals in a general direction or to narrow down the available options. If you want to assess yourself, it is incumbent upon you to investigate the personality types in more detail to be certain of the type that best fits you. Unofficial tests, like fun online quizzes, tend to yield inaccurate results, especially when they are constructed by people who have little to no knowledge of Jung’s type theory.

Self-report questionnaires require people to answer honestly and factually about themselves, but this is sometimes difficult to do. Some factors that potentially impact the validity of the results include:

Misinterpretation: Language is imperfect and reading comprehension problems can happen. Lay people may misinterpret key words or struggle to understand unfamiliar psychology terminology. A simple questionnaire can’t account for subjective problems like these.
Pressure to Conform: Type assessments sometimes occur in situations where people fear that the results could be used against them, such as employment or relationship situations. This puts pressure on people to appear in a more positive light. In these cases, a simple questionnaire might only reveal a person’s social mask rather than their true type.
Biases or Stereotypes: People who have already been exposed to ideas about personality might inadvertently manipulate responses to reflect what they deem to be a “desirable” personality. People who are already familiar with the 16 types may be motivated to answer questions such that they get the type they aspire to be. People may believe that certain personality traits are correlated with gender, culture, or socioeconomic status and answer in accordance with the expected stereotypes. A simple questionnaire won’t be able to carefully rate authenticity or detect inauthentic responses.
Unusual Life Circumstances: People have rich and varied experiences that might affect the degree to which they know themselves. Younger people (<16) often have a weak/naive sense of identity that obscures their true type. People going through significant life changes such as divorce, retirement, or tragedy are often confused about their identity. People who suffer from mental disorder, substance abuse, chronic illness, or chronic stress might display extreme personality characteristics that seem out-of-character. A simple questionnaire won’t be able to take these contextual factors into careful consideration.

💭

Addressing Myths & Misconceptions

Many people like to learn about their type online, for free, where there is quite a lot of unreliable information floating around. Therefore, one must be careful about dealing with misconceptions. There are many reasons behind this proliferation of bad information:

Type theory is quite complicated (because psychology is complicated) and many amateur type enthusiasts only possess a superficial understanding of the ideas, which leads to some writers spreading misinterpretations or mere speculations.
One reason type theory is complicated and difficult to learn is that, as with any major theory, several later theorists have put forth their own ideas as they continue to develop Jung’s early ideas. Disagreements sometimes arise depending on which school of thought a person subscribes to.
Type doesn’t explain everything: People sometimes misattribute certain thinking/behavior to their personality type when other factors such as developmental problems, environmental influence, mental illness, or genetic aptitude/predisposition would be more appropriate explanations.
Since there is such a diversity of types, some writers have difficulty understanding the types that are very different from their own, perhaps even displaying “typism” or harmful biases for/against certain type preferences (intentionally or unintentionally).
Many people are mistyped and this can skew the overall impression of a type online when you’re reading a lot of self-descriptive/self-reported data.
Information on the internet is rarely taken down, which allows bad information to linger and spread.

I address misconceptions throughout this guide, mainly by delineating differences between common assumptions, the MBTI system, and Jungian theory.

🔍

Trait versus Type Theory

Jungian personality type is a “category” theory of personality, which is different from a “trait” theory of personality (like the Five Factor model as an example).

A trait theory of personality focuses on behavior and measures the amount of a trait you possess, usually along a scale or spectrum. For example, the trait of “openness” can be measured along a sliding scale from “open” at one end to “closed” at the other end. Traits are normally distributed in the population, which means that: 1) most people fall somewhere in the middle, and 2) extremes are of more interest because they may indicate abnormality. What is considered “normal” depends on where you fall on the spectrum. Therefore, higher/lower test scores tell you something important about how much of a trait you have and whether you are unusual/abnormal with respect to the bell curve.

A type category theory of personality does not measure traits along a spectrum, rather, it divides the population into categories that are qualitatively distinct from each other, with no overlap. Therefore, you cannot fall “in the middle” because there is no middle. Jung’s personality categories do not refer to traits but rather to cognitive processes. Personality is conceptualized as several opposing cognitive processes. For example, “sensing” and “intuition” are two distinct and opposing mindsets within you. You are capable of using both, but the category that you belong to depends on which process is more dominant, as revealed by: 1) how often you use it, and 2) how natural it feels for you to use it. Each personality category is respected in its own right. Thus, test scores have no real meaning beyond indicating the likelihood of you being sorted into a particular type category.

To sum up the differences, in trait theories:

variables measure the amount of a trait on a scale/spectrum
traits are normally distributed, with extremes being of more interest
you can define the “normalcy” of a trait based on the scale/spectrum point
high/low test scores can be interpreted as positive or negative

whereas in type category theories:

each type category is qualitatively distinct from other categories
people are sorted into categories according to cognitive dominance
categories indicate comparative difference, but none are abnormal
test scores are not positive/negative, as they only measure probability

Test results should be interpreted by type category standards - not trait theory standards, e.g.:

high score for a category does NOT mean you have “more” of it
high score for a category does NOT indicate that you are better/worse
high score for a category does NOT imply greater skill/maturity
no type category is considered more/less desirable

Taking this further, you should NOT assume that:

someone is the “right” or “wrong” type for anything
some types are more or less fit for any job or career
some type combinations are more “compatible”
some types are superior or inferior than others
an individual will enjoy or be skilled at activities common for the type

Type category theory appreciates the diversity of human psychology rather than using a narrow definition of what is “normal”. Therefore, every type is equal in that each type has its own unique set of strengths and weaknesses.

PART II: THE FOUR ASPECTS OF PERSONALITY

Since Jung’s personality types are defined as one’s cognitive mindset, cognition is more important than behavior for determining your true type. Cognition refers to the mental processes that you use to make sense of the world, whereas behavior is the observable outcome of your cognition. When doing type assessment, the best questions to ask yourself are directly about your cognition, whereas questions about behavior are, at best, only useful for inferring your cognition.

The widely used MBTI codes refer to four different dimensions of personality, with sixteen possible types in total. Each dimension includes two distinct and oppositional cognitive attitudes or processes. With each dimension being a dichotomy, you aren’t able to use both sides at exactly the same time, i.e., using one will negate the use of the other. Just as you can’t turn both left and right at the same time, you can’t, for example, both introvert and extravert at the same time. Both options are available to you, but you have to pick one at any given moment.

Purpose	Dichotomy	Cognitive Dominance
Energy Orientation	E (Extraversion)/ I (Introversion)	describes the dominant direction of attention and energy use
Data Generation	S (Sensing)/ N (Intuition)	describes the dominant perceptual process for data gathering/generation
Judgment & Decisions	T (Thinking)/ F (Feeling)	describes the dominant evaluative process for judgment/decisions
Opening vs Closing	P (Perceiving)/ J (Judging)	describes the dominant need for openness or closedness in the world

Note the word “dominant”. It has two important meanings:

the dominant side is the side that you use most often
the dominant side is the side that you use most effortlessly

Using your natural cognitive process results in you feeling like you are being your authentic self. Using the opposing, less dominant cognitive process results in you feeling like something is off, like you’re being something foreign to yourself, and this eventually leads to existential discomfort.

You have the free will to choose the side that isn’t dominant for you whenever circumstances call for it. For instance, if you’re introverted, you know that some situations call for extraverted behavior, so you choose to act more extraverted for awhile. However, ACTING like an extravert doesn’t make you a real extravert, because the dominance of introversion in your personality cannot be overwritten by a short burst of inauthentic behavior.

In this example, we would say that your behavior is due to situational factors (environment) rather than dispositional factors (personality). Human behavior is complicated because it can be motivated from many different directions. Therefore, when doing type assessment, you are looking for your underlying disposition, aside from situational factors that press you to go against your true type.

The next section includes detailed descriptions of the four dimensions of personality. It is important to remember that personality expression is long term. You are looking for consistent, persistent, and enduring patterns in your cognition and behavior over a significant portion of your life.

🎯

Energy Orientation: Extraversion (E) vs Introversion (I)

The purpose of this dimension of personality is to draw a clear line between one’s internal subjective experiences and the external objective world (that exists independently from human psychology).

E Extraverts naturally direct their energy and attention outwards

I Introverts naturally direct their energy and attention inwards

Extraverts have a stronger relationship with the objects of the external world (than themselves) because they feel a stronger cognitive need for frequent interaction with the world. To extraverts, what’s happening in the world is more important than what’s happening inside. Introverts have a stronger relationship with themselves (than the external world) because they feel a stronger cognitive need to connect with themselves. To introverts, what’s happening inside is more important than what’s happening in the world.

Ideally, everyone needs to learn when to extravert and introvert at the right time. However, each individual has a stronger affinity for one direction over the other. There is compelling evidence to suggest that this dimension of personality has a strong biological basis. Extraverts and Introverts are easily identifiable even in infancy. According to statistical studies, Extraverts and Introverts are roughly evenly split in the general population, with a few studies finding a slightly greater number of Extraverts.

Neurologically, Extraverts and Introverts differ because they utilize different pathways in the brain for processing information. Extraverts are much faster at processing incoming information from the world. Therefore, they have a higher tolerance for stimulation and tend to actively seek out stimulating experiences. Introverts are slower at processing incoming information because they have to filter it quite thoroughly through their own personal lens. Therefore, they have a lower tolerance for stimulation and tend to avoid situations that might overwhelm them. This neurological difference explains why Extraverts tend to be active and action-oriented, whereas Introverts tend to be more idiosyncratic in their preference for a slower and manageable pace.

E and I are two opposite ways of being energized and using/directing mental energy:

Everyone extraverts and introverts as they need to, but one side is more dominant, natural, and automatic.
Extraversion directs energy outwards onto objects/people/events in the objective world. Extraverts derive more energy from action and interaction, which prompts them to seek out the rewards of worldly activity, as circumstances allow. They want stimulation and immediate feedback and are easily bored when forced to be too inactive. When Extraverts introvert too long, they feel restless or ill-at-ease, and then have to extravert to restore equilibrium to their personality.
Introversion directs energy inwards onto subjective experiences. Introverts desire reflection and interpretation, which prompts them to seek out the rewards of personal/solitary experience, as circumstances allow. They want more time and space for themselves to process information and are easily thrown when forced to be too active. When Introverts extravert too long, they feel tired or overwhelmed, and then have to introvert to restore equilibrium to their personality.
Extraverts and Introverts sometimes have difficulty understanding each other because their approach to life goes in opposite directions. From the perspective of an Extravert, Introverts often seem: aloof, atypical, inhibited, cowardly, slow, inflexible, inexpressive, opaque (hard to know). From the perspective of an Introvert, Extraverts often seem: unreflective, obnoxious, impulsive, cavalier, overbearing, overwhelming, aggressive, brazen.

When personality test questions veer into trait territory like “sociable” or “outgoing”, they are getting somewhat away from the main principle of Extraversion as action-oriented. In other words, being action-oriented does NOT necessarily mean that a person enjoys socializing. When personality test questions veer into trait territory like “shy” or “quiet”, they are getting somewhat away from the main principle of introversion as reflective. In other words, being reflective does not mean that a person is necessarily shy or anxious.

There is much confusion among lay people about how to define “extraversion” and “introversion” because different personality theories define the terms differently. Since psychologists widely use the Five Factor theory of personality traits (OCEAN), many people understand extraversion as existing on a trait spectrum, from extremely introverted at one end to extremely extraverted on the other end. Thus, they conceptualize themselves as falling somewhere in the middle between the two poles, with many people calling themselves an “ambivert”. However, as explained earlier, type theory isn’t a trait theory. In type theory, Extraversion and Introversion are two distinct attitudes, and type is determined by cognitive dominance of one over the other.

People sometimes have difficulty self-typing when they suffer from an extraneous problem that significantly influences their behavior, such as: mental illness, socioeconomic stress, psychological development issues, or social pressures. For example: An Extravert who suffers depression might display stereotypically introverted behavior because they lack the will or energy to carry out their extraverted desires. An Introvert who suffers anxiety may display stereotypically extraverted behavior because they channel their nervous energy into micromanaging every threatening situation. An Introvert who is financially disadvantaged may have no choice but to be constantly moving and shaking in order to survive. An Extraverted child who is severely punished for being “loud” may eventually withdraw and become very silent. Anyone can seek out stimulation when they feel bored or want to withdraw when a situation gets overwhelming enough. Remember that personality is found in your most consistent, persistent, and enduring patterns of cognition and behavior over the long term. What is your true disposition, aside from situational factors?

⚖️

Data Generation: Sensing (S) vs Intuition (N)

The purpose of this dimension of personality is to draw a clear line between two fundamentally different kinds of information that one can collect from the world.

S Sensors prefer concrete data

I Intuitives prefer abstract data

Sensors look for concrete facts and details because they prefer to deal with objects in the world as they actually exist materially. Intuitives look for abstract patterns and connections because they prefer to deal with the potential of objects to become something else. Sensors take things as they are and work with them, whereas Intuitives want to believe that reality can be different or changed, as that gives them a sense of hope for the future. This explains why Sensors tend to be present and realistic, whereas Intuitives tend to be speculative and idealistic.

Ideally, everyone needs to learn the right situations in which to rely on concrete or abstract information. However, each individual has a stronger affinity for one kind of information processing over the other. According to statistical studies, Sensors significantly outnumber Intuitives in the general population.

People have difficulty determining S/N because they don’t understand what the terms “concrete” and “abstract” really mean. In philosophy, a concrete quality is defined as something that is inherent to objects themselves. For example, the book that I am reading is made of paper. There is no situation in which the book will not be made of paper, in other words, it is a property which is inherent and fundamental to the book’s existence (an essential part of what makes the book a book, which is why we don’t call e-books “books” to avoid confusion). By contrast, an abstract quality is not considered inherent to the object itself but rather arises from its relationship to something else. For example, the “purpose” of the book is to disseminate information. However, I could easily use the book for some other purpose such as a weapon, a paperweight, or kindling for a fire. “Purpose” is an abstract property of the book because it can change (or be changed) without affecting what the book really is. Sensors trust in concrete qualities as being most real, whereas Intuitives enjoy abstracting other possible qualities and envisioning how they could just as easily be(come) real.

S and N are two opposite ways of perceiving the world:

Everyone senses and intuits as they need to, but one side is more dominant, natural, and automatic.
Sensing gathers concrete information through the physical senses, and recent research indicates that there are more than five senses. Sensors derive confidence and comfort from sensory existence/experience, which prompts them to prioritize factual details and talk about them. They want information that is grounded, practical, orderly, and obvious and are easily put off by too much conjecture. When Sensors intuit for too long, they feel impatient with speculation, and then have to get back to what they know to be concretely verifiable to restore equilibrium to their personality.
Intuition gathers abstract information through speculating about possibilities. Intuitives derive hope and optimism from envisioning future developments, which prompts them to prioritize idealistic imagery and talk about potential. They want information that is general (gist), conceptual, symbolic, interconnected, or big-picture and are easily put off by feeling forced to explain or sequence “every little detail”. When Intuitives sense for too long, their ideas start to feel stressed by the concrete, and they have to get back to entertaining new or interesting possibilities to restore equilibrium to their personality.
Sensors and Intuitives sometimes have difficulty understanding each other because their approach to life goes in opposite directions. From the perspective of a Sensor, Intuitives can often seem: impractical, careless, weird, extreme, lacking common sense. From the perspective of an Intuitive, Sensors can often seem: pessimistic, narrow-minded, stubborn, conventional, short-sighted.

Intuitives are generally more interested in personality theory and write about it. As a result, many personality questionnaires/descriptions misconstrue or downplay the strengths of the Sensing process, which means that the N descriptions end up sounding better on paper. It is important to note that the two concepts of creativity and intelligence fall outside of personality type. What makes a person creative is whether they know how to make good use of what they have and what makes a person intelligent is whether they learn effectively - neither is limited by type.

People sometimes have difficulty self-typing when they suffer from personality development problems. Many Intuitives suffer from “detail anxiety” because they (unconsciously) fear that they are NOT good with noticing, remembering, or sequencing little details, so the tendency to nitpick details or obsess over facts can create the illusion that they are Sensors. Generally speaking, you can spot them by observing that: 1) they only nitpick and obsess when it is for the purpose of realizing a greater vision, i.e., there is often an unhealthy perfectionism to their behavior that reveals they care more about actualizing potential than the little concrete details themselves, and 2) they tend to be oversensitive about being exposed as bad with details because it is a sore spot for them. By contrast, Sensors deal quite naturally with facts and details like a fish swimming with the stream. They tend to react with acceptance rather than defensiveness when facts and details are clarified, and they only nitpick whenever they feel that it is necessary for staying grounded in reality. Therefore, the superficial characteristic of “attentive to facts and details” is insufficient for determining S/N if you don’t understand the true cognitive motivation behind the behavior and if you don’t observe whether it is done in a positive or negative manner.

Remember that personality is found in your most consistent, persistent, and enduring patterns of cognition and behavior over the long term. What is your true disposition, aside from situational factors?

🧩

Judgment & Decisions: Thinking (T) vs Feeling (F)

The purpose of this dimension of personality is to draw a clear line between two fundamentally different kinds of evaluative processes that people use to make rational judgments and decisions.

T Thinkers prefer an impersonal systems approach

F Feelers prefer an inter/personal values approach

Thinkers evaluate situations impersonally with their reliance on empirical results. Feelers evaluate situations personally and interpersonally with their reliance on human values. Ideally, everyone needs to learn the right situations in which to rely on empirical systematizing or human valuations. However, each individual has a stronger affinity for one evaluative process over the other. According to statistical studies, Thinkers and Feelers are roughly evenly split in the general population, with a few studies finding a slightly greater number of Feelers.

Many people have difficulty determining T/F because the words “think” and “feel” possess many usages and positive/negative connotations in everyday language, so it is easy to apply the wrong meaning. To be clear, Thinking and Feeling are judgment processes, so they are both necessarily rational processes that require the use of reasoning to draw conclusions. The difference between them is NOT found in the crude dichotomy of “reason versus emotion”.

“Thinking” does not mean “smart”. Thinking refers to the process of categorizing and organizing information such that decisions can be made efficiently and effectively. Thinkers do not like to leave room for doubt, confusion, or ambiguity, and they will eliminate any factors that interfere with sensible and effective action. “Feeling” does not refer to “emotion”. Feeling refers to the process of taking into account human preferences and values when making decisions. Feelers prioritize human welfare and well-being, and they want to reduce suffering even if the underlying problem can’t be solved. Therefore, Thinkers tend to be more assertive and critical, whereas Feelers tend to be more accommodating and communicative.

T and F are two opposite ways of evaluating:

Everyone thinks and feels as they need to, but one side is more dominant, natural, and automatic.
Thinking uses empirical rules, standards, criteria, principles, or formulas to determine causation and enact the best effect. Thinkers are results-oriented, which prompts them to prioritize the most logical conclusions and efficient solutions. They want the confidence of being impartial and dispassionate in their approach to situations, treating everyone and everything as equal, and easily frustrated when situations become complicated. When Thinkers are forced to rely on Feeling judgments too much, they have difficulty navigating the complicated depth and idiosyncrasies of human preferences, and have to get back to straightforward rules and fixed principles to restore equilibrium to their personality.
Feeling uses human feelings and ethical boundaries to assess worth and acceptability. Feelers are values-oriented, which prompts them to prioritize how people feel and come up with emotionally/morally satisfying outcomes, usually through consensus or compromise. They want the confidence of knowing that their judgments/decisions align with their feelings of integrity, treating everyone as deserving of integrity, but easily confused when forced to choose between competing interests. When Feelers are forced to rely on Thinking judgments too much, they start to worry that harm could be caused by ignoring feelings and values, and have to get back to a sensitive and empathetic approach to restore equilibrium to their personality.
Thinkers and Feelers sometimes have difficulty understanding each other because their approach to life goes in opposite directions. From the perspective of a Thinker, Feelers can often seem: inconsistent, indecisive, overemotional, unpredictable, oversensitive. From the perspective of a Feeler, Thinkers can often seem: inflexible, arrogant, judgmental, dismissive, insensitive.

Whether someone appears “warm” or “cold” is insufficient for determining T/F if you don’t understand the motivation behind it, and if you don’t question whether it is their true face. Using “emotional expressiveness” to gauge T/F is often misleading because: 1) “expressiveness” is better correlated with Extraversion, and 2) the degree to which someone is able to express or comfortable expressing their feelings and emotions is heavily influenced by upbringing and environment. It is possible for Feelers to be out of touch with feelings if they were always taught to suppress them. It is possible for Thinkers to be more emotionally expressive if they have often been rewarded for it (or not punished for it).

People sometimes have difficulty self-typing when they suffer from personality development problems. It is common for Feelers to mistype as Thinker when they were raised in an environment that derided their emotional sensitivity or criticized them for being “weak”, to the point where they internalized those criticisms and learned to wear a mask of “strength”. Generally speaking, you can spot them by observing that: 1) their T-looking behaviors are often unhealthy/ineffective because they are overcompensating for the criticisms that they fear, i.e., they are ultimately motivated by low self-esteem and the fear of being exposed as a Feeler, 2) they tend to be sensitive to criticism because it unconsciously triggers their low self-esteem, and 3) they claim to be “logical” or “rational” even when there is plenty of evidence that they have poor problem solving ability (e.g. they make bad decisions or their life is a mess). By contrast, Thinkers tend to react to factual criticism with acceptance rather than defensiveness because it fits perfectly within their efficient problem-solving attitude. Under normal circumstances, Thinkers don’t feel compelled to prove anything to anyone due to having confidence in their natural problem solving abilities. It is less common for Thinkers to mistype as Feeler, though it can happen in cases where there is some other significant factor influencing behavior, such as mental disorder or chronic stress.

📊

Opening vs Closing: Perceiving (P) vs Judging (J)

The purpose of this dimension of personality is to define whether somebody has an opening or a closing mindset towards the external world.

P Perceivers try to keep situations as open as possible

J Judgers try to close situations as soon as possible

Perceivers, also known as “prospectors”, like to explore options, so they prospect for more information before making judgments and decisions. Judgers are “closers” and prefer predictability, so they make judgments and decisions quickly to move forward. Ideally, everyone needs to learn when to gather more data and when it is time to draw a conclusion/make a decision. However, each individual has a stronger affinity for one approach over the other. According to statistical studies, Perceivers and Judgers are roughly evenly split in the general population.

Many people have difficulty determining P/J because, after reading oversimplified descriptions, they mistakenly equate it with “organization skills” or lack thereof. This idea gets too far away from the main principles of openness and closure. Closure usually means obtaining a sense of resolution. Generally speaking, TJs tend to desire “problem” resolution and FJs tend to desire “emotional” resolution. TJs have difficulty letting problems sit unresolved, and they have trouble existing in environments that are hard to organize and control. FJs have difficulty letting negative feelings sit unresolved, and they have trouble existing in environments that are emotionally negative or unpredictable. All Judgers tend to feel uneasy until closure is achieved, which of course makes them much more motivated to actively put out the effort to achieve closure. By contrast, Perceivers prefer openness and open-endedness, so they are much more comfortable adapting to unpredictable change, and they often prefer to wait for more information to arise rather than resolve situations prematurely, for fear of missing out on something new/important. This explains why Perceivers tend to be more easygoing and spontaneous, whereas Judgers tend to want more structure and implement it whenever necessary.

P and J are two opposite attitudes that describe your general approach to the external world (regardless of E/I):

People sometimes have difficulty self-typing when they suffer from an extraneous problem that significantly influences their desire for closure. For example: A Perceiver who suffers anxiety may present “controlling” behaviors that mimic J tendencies. A Judger who has not learned good decision making skills may live a messy life which mimics P tendencies. A child who has a parent with the opposite P/J preference might be forced to behave more like their parent.

Everyone perceives and judges as they need to, but one side is more dominant, natural, and automatic.
Perceiving aims for flexibility and accessibility from the world. Perceivers prefer to be receptive and impromptu, more likely to use S/N than T/F. Perceivers derive more ease and pleasure in always remaining open to new information/possibilities, which prompts them to avoid rules/structures that would close off their options. They want the freedom to adapt, respond, or pursue possibilities as needed, maintaining the time and space to weigh options, and are easily uncomfortable when not allowed to handle situations at their own pace. When Perceivers must exist in a predominantly Judging environment, they find it limiting and restrictive and eventually have to remove or escape the structure to restore equilibrium to their personality.
Judging aims for things to be settled and decided quickly in the world. Judgers prefer to be methodical and decisive, more likely to use T/F than S/N. Judgers derive more trust and confidence from knowing how things should/will go, which prompts them to make effective decisions and plans. They want to use their time well, naturally tracking how it is spent, and are easily uncomfortable when lacking preparation or when tasks cannot be competed on time. When Judgers must exist in a predominantly Perceiving environment, they find it messy and chaotic and eventually have to impose some form of structure to restore equilibrium to their personality.
Perceivers and Judgers sometimes have difficulty understanding each other because their approach to life goes in opposite directions. From the perspective of a Perceiver, Judgers can often seem: aggressive, controlling, uptight, boring, uncompromising. From the perspective of a Judger, Perceivers can often seem: lazy, apathetic, procrastinating, disorderly, irresponsible.

Ask yourself how you react when: situations are indefinite or open-ended, loose ends remain, problems remain, conflicts or negative feelings linger, decisions cannot be made efficiently, plans change without warning, unexpected things happen, you have to decide without being able to predict the outcome, etc. If you are the kind of person who needs to know exactly how to proceed in any situation in order to feel more at ease, you are likely J. If you are the kind of person who wouldn’t mind knowing but doesn’t NEED to know, who would rather not know, doesn’t care, or is okay either way, you are likely P.

Generally speaking, Judgers enjoy managing situations (positively motivated) whereas Perceivers tend to do it more out of necessity or even desperation (negatively motivated). Remember that personality is found in your most consistent, persistent, and enduring patterns of cognition and behavior over the long term. What is your true disposition, aside from situational factors?

🔬

Why Generic Type Descriptions Seem Off

When Myers and Briggs developed their system, they glossed over many important aspects of Jungian theory. Unfortunately, this created problems when MBTI became pop psychology and people tried to assess themselves for fun. As mentioned earlier, the MBTI or MBTI-inspired questionnaires aren’t reliable instruments, which leads to many people misusing them and then mistyping themselves/others. Additionally, most people are not inclined to read more than a short description of their type, which means that they aren’t getting to the most important parts of type theory that would help them with personal growth.

Generic type descriptions can’t capture the true range and variety within each type. They should be taken with a large grain of salt because they have several significant flaws, including:

Over-reliance on Behavioral “Boxes”: Generic descriptions assign a particular set of behavioral traits to each type, in hopes of making it easier to identify yourself in them. This has led to the labels that are commonly used to symbolize each type, e.g., ESFP entertainers, ESTJ managers, INFP dreamers, ISTP craftsmen, etc. These labels are deceiving because they portray each type as a fixed collection of traits, which inadvertently erases the diversity within each type. Does every ESFP love to perform? No. Then what is a “real” ESFP? This is a question that is properly answered by going back to Jung’s cognitive function theory. Cognitive functions don’t begin with behavioral traits, rather, they begin deep in the root of the mind, describing the unconscious psychological forces that produce an individual’s behavioral traits. As long as you possess the ESFP patterns of cognition, you are ESFP, even if you don’t check off all the traits of the “behavioral box” description. The behavioral box approach easily devolves into misleading stereotypes. Dealing in stereotypes makes your knowledge of personality type too crude to be useful.

Development Blindness: While personality type doesn’t change, generic type descriptions don’t include any information about how a personality develops over time, as people go through various stages of life. ISFJs at the age of 12 are surely going to be very different from ISFJs at the age of 50. The concept of “development” is extremely important in Jungian theory because Jung believed that the main goal of life was individuation, i.e., becoming the unique individual that you are meant to be in the world through purposeful self-development. This means that personality isn’t destiny so much as a roadmap for personal growth. Myers and Briggs focused too much on “traits”, which easily gives the impression of a fixed personality. Jung focused on mindset, which emphasizes the dynamic interplay between an individual and the world that they live in. Each individual has a unique history and unique circumstances to deal with, so each individual is a unique example of their type - but you will not see this if your knowledge of type theory doesn’t go any deeper than the generic type description. Myers and Briggs deliberately chose to focus on psychologically normal and healthy people, which means that their system excludes people with atypical personality development issues that cause them to deviate from the generic descriptions. If you want to really know yourself, it’s not enough to know what your personality looks like in very generic/ideal terms. Depth of self-knowledge requires Jung’s holistic approach to psychology, which the MBTI system is not built for.

The truth is that MBTI assessment has become a commercial enterprise and many websites are set up to sell you a service. Therefore, generic type descriptions are often skewed toward the “favorables” or “strengths” of each type to hook your attention through validation. The dark aspects of personality are usually overlooked or ignored, which means that these websites are ultimately superficial and will not grant you a very deep understanding of yourself. People presumably get interested in personality type as a way to learn more about themselves. Therefore, I always recommend that people look beyond the MBTI system and, instead, study <a href="/undefined/cognitive-functions" class="text-primary hover:underline">Jung’s cognitive function theory</a>. One of the central concepts of Jungian theory is the unconscious mind. Jungians believe that personal growth comes from mining the rich contents of the unconscious mind, such that self-awareness grows and personality problems get resolved. To understand your personality, you can’t simply take the one or two most desirable aspects of your type and call it a day. You must examine the entirety of your personality, including all the complexes, flaws, shortcomings, weaknesses, hangups, fears, insecurities, defenses, etc. Jung believed that, without becoming aware of your unconscious activity, you won’t really mature as an individual.

PART III: PERSONALITY DEVELOPMENT

🎓

Adaptive vs Maladaptive Type Expression

Not every individual expresses their type in a healthy manner depending on their state of psychological maturity. If the two sides of a dichotomy are too far out of balance, a person might begin to manifest the negative characteristics of each cognitive attitude or process, e.g.:

Process	Adaptive	Maladaptive
Extraversion	charming enthusiastic sociable	boastful intrusive loud
Introversion	deep discreet tranquil	aloof inhibited withdrawn
Sensing	pragmatic precise detailed	dull fuzzy obsessive
Intuition	imaginative ingenious insightful	eccentric erratic unrealistic
Thinking	lucid objective succinct	argumentative intolerant coarse
Feeling	appreciative considerate tactful	evasive hypersensitive vague
Judging	efficient planful responsible	compulsive impatient rigid
Perceiving	adaptable easygoing flexible	procrastinating unreliable scattered

✨

Practicing Better Perception & Judgment

When you meet a new situation, obstacle, challenge, or problem, take some time to consciously express your personality in a more well-rounded way:

use the perceiving processes (S+N) to gather enough data
use the judging processes (T+F) to do enough data analysis

In other words, ensure that your perceiving and judging processes work well together. This helps you access the positive aspects of your type, minimize the negative aspects of your type, and develop better decision making habits to aid future situations.

Here are some example questions to ask yourself in any situation:

Sensing: What are the plain and unavoidable facts, and are you confronting them? What practical resources are available to you, and what can realistically be achieved with them? Do you know someone with relevant authority, experience, or expertise to seek help from? Does there exist a reliable method or established procedure for handling this sort of situation?

Intuition: Have you brainstormed ideas for changing or improving the situation? Are there people who could provide creative insight and help you see the situation in a new way? Have you tried to visualize all the possible contingencies and outcomes before making a decision? Do you have a long-term vision/mission/purpose to guide your decision making?

Thinking: What knowledge and skills does everyone bring to the table, and how can you best utilize them? What knowledge, skills, or conditions are you lacking, and how should these obstacles be removed? What is your objective, what is your strategy for reaching it, and what exact criteria should be used to evaluate success or failure? Have you performed an impartial pro/con or cost/benefit analysis to determine the most logical decision?

Feeling: Which option seems most palatable to you considering your needs, desires, values, and priorities? Is it necessary to consult with those involved and negotiate a better consensus or agreement? Who has a stake in the situation, and who will win or lose from the outcome? Is it possible to achieve a win-win scenario? If so, how? If not, how do you mitigate the negative impact?

If you believe that your personality development has been atypical or stalled, for whatever reason, such that you can’t identify yourself in generic average descriptions of your type, then the MBTI system isn’t meant for you. I recommend learning <a href="/undefined/cognitive-functions" class="text-primary hover:underline">Jung’s cognitive function theory</a> because it provides much more detail and finer distinctions for making sense of what’s happening in the mind.

Sources for further reading:

• The Essentials of MBTI Assessment, 2Ed. Quenk, N. 2009.
• Gifts Differing: Understanding Personality Type. Myers, I. 1995.