Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Comments on "The misleading letter from Jung on Myers-Briggs typology"

  1. #1
    CR400AF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Location
    Earth
    TIM
    LII 5w6-1w9-2w1
    Posts
    341
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Comments on "The misleading letter from Jung on Myers-Briggs typology"

    I just saw this article from the chat box of this forum. It's quite interesting. So I leave some quick comments here in the forum to make it more permanent.

    Link: https://steve.myers.co/the-misleadin...iggs-typology/

    There is a popular misunderstanding that C.G. Jung approved of Isabel Briggs Myers’ work. However, he repeatedly objected to the popular interpretation of his book Psychological Types and research based on the MBTI® instrument. There was a rift between I.B. Myers and C.G. Jung which has been hidden for more than half a century from those who use Myers-Briggs typology (Myers, S. 2019).



    The misunderstanding is largely due to a complimentary letter from Jung to Myers in 1950. However, Jung did not write it and it did not represent his opinion. It was written by his secretary who couched it in diplomatic language to conceal Jung’s disapproval.
    I agree with it. This article argues that the letter from Jung to Myers was actually written by his secretary in order to be diplomatic. I think it's quite possible. It seems entirely possible to me that Jung could have done something like this. He had inferior Fe, so he may have wanted to appear polite, and at this point had his secretary write some of the more diplomatic letters. This article cites numerous pieces of evidence to try to show that Jung's letters of appreciation for Myers were diplomatic, and I think his inference is quite convincing.

    Firstly, the letter contradicts the views that Jung expressed elsewhere. For example, when asked in an interview about the American interpretation of his typological theory, he said ‘God preserve me from my friends’ (Jung 1957, p. 304). Another example is Jung’s response to a PhD student, who contacted Jung to ask for comments on his MBTI research. Jung refused to help, saying this type of work did not align with the content of his book (Jung 1977, pp. 550-52). Jung made various objections to the popular interpretation of his typological theory from the early 1930s to the late 1950s.
    This is one of the most interesting bits in this article. He says that a doctoral student once wrote to Jung to ask him to comment on his MBTI study, and Jung refused and opposed such a study. I looked up this letter according to the index listed in the article and found that it was the letter to von Fange that I had mentioned in 16t. Link:https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...in-his-letters

    Now, an interesting question is whether Jung would have opposed Socionics. many people may think that since Jung opposed MBTI, he must have opposed Socionics. i think such a judgment is arbitrary. There is no doubt that Jung would not have agreed with all of the Socionics community's research. But logically, although both MBTI and Socionics evolved from Jung's typological system with 16 types, we cannot directly assume that MBTI and Socionics are logically equivalent because of this. Therefore, I do not think that Jung's opposition to MBTI means that he would necessarily oppose Socionics, because there are several important differences between Socionics and MBTI.

    1) In its interpretation of the underlying concepts, Socionics offers a completely new interpretation of I/E, but there is no doubt that this interpretation is closer to the true meaning of Jung's original work. Although I admit that there are errors in the examples of Socionics (especially Ti/Te), and just as Jung's original work is constantly misunderstood, the definition of Socionics is constantly misunderstood and stereotyped in the process of dissemination. But when we go back to the most basic definition, IMO Socionics is the best successor to the real ideas of Jung's original work.

    2) In their judgments of type, early Socionics researchers do not seem to have been keen on testing. Rather, they preferred to judge the Model A functions of their clients through consultations and interviews, while MBTI advocated the use of psychological questionnaires to test and count clients on a large scale at a very early stage.

    It is then an interesting fact that these two key differences are precisely the reason why Jung objected to his research in this letter to von Fange. One very important piece of information that this web page provides is that this page states that the letter discusses the MBTI study. Previously, I had not noticed this in the C.G. Jung Letters, because Jung did not mention the term MBTI in his reply.

    Let's review the letter:

    Quote Originally Posted by Jung to von Fange
    I admit that your statistical line of research is perfectly legitimate but it certainly does not coincide with the purpose of my book, which in my humble opinion aims at something far more vital than classification. Though I have expressed my therapeutic views most emphatically only very few of my readers noticed them. The possibility of classification seems to be far more attractive.

    By this rather longwinded peroration I am trying to explain to you why I am more or less unable to give you any helpful suggestions in your specific enterprise, since my thoughts do not move on this line at all. I am even sceptical in this respect.

    I hold the conviction that for the purpose of any classification one should start with fundamental and indubitable principles and not with empirical notions, i.e., with almost colloquial terms based upon mere rules of thumb. My concepts are merely meant to serve as a means of communication through colloquial language. As principles however I should say that they are in themselves immensely complicated structures which can hardly fulfil the role of scientific principles. Much more important are the contents conveyed by language than their terms.
    That's what Jung have specifically opposed against in this letter:

    1) the statistical line of research.
    2) interpreting his work literally while ignoring the inevitable core concepts

    IMO, Socionics is doing pretty well in these two aspects.

    To that extent, actually, I think MBTI is more in line with Big Five. Both are statistical, both use tests, and both interpret I/E in the Non-Jungian way.

  2. #2
    Hot Scalding Gayser's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The evolved form of Warm Soapy Water
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    14,902
    Mentioned
    661 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I feel like he would reject both, I don't think he'd approve of socionics necessarily. I think he didn't like any system that corrupted his im elements like that. He seemed to believe in a rough anima/animus & opposites of duality but not the itr extent of socionics or the narc corporate identity of mbti.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    15,766
    Mentioned
    1404 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Where Jung could oppose to MBTI is not the theory of MBTI itself, but how it's used. Except addition of J/P, MBTI strictly follows to Jung.

    For example.
    The approach of MBTI followers is to talk about type as "gifts". While for Jung those were accentuations. It's the opposite practical approach, as gifts should be used (load on strong functions), while accentuations should be reduced (load on weak functions).
    It's useful to more rely on stronger functions to solve tasks, to choose occupations - from the point of particular results. For example, T types (in average) better solve technical and math tasks. But Jung would prefer to improve inner psyche state (by reducing functional disbalance), where to load stronger functions means to support and accentuate the type further.

    The other place on the surface is how MBTI authors understood functional model of introverted types. Where types said as rational/judging somehow got irrational/perceiving function as leading for them.

    It's not clear how stable his types Jung supposed. He said types may change during the life. MBTI authors thought different to this.

    Could be more for Jung's opposing.
    2 first reasons would be enough for Jung to hold against any support for MBTI authors. As those used his ideas in a way which he saw as harmful and misleading.
    This does not mean that Jung disagreed with anything what MBTI authors did.

    > many people may think that since Jung opposed MBTI, he must have opposed Socionics

    Socionics, in common practice, has taken same idea of "gifts".
    Augustinavichiute most probably knew MBTI related works before or during making Socionics. MBTI was inputed in her book "Socionics" (1998) as a practical material. In Socionics are used similar dichotomy/preferences based tests. Idea of 3rd Jung's function as weakest could be taken from MBTI related texts, where for dichotomies approach is better when functions 2-3 have difference of the strenght more comparable with for 1-4.
    In the same book, near MBTI test exists a place where said how people having other strong functions may support the ones having opposite strong functions. It's similar to ideas of duality types, but on the level of dichotomies T-F and S-N.

    Also, Jung could doubt in the idea about duality as better pair. In such relations tasks related to weak functions tend be transfered on other human. This may become an obstacle to use weak functions by yourself and hence to improve them. He'd understood such relations as can be more pleasant, but his priority would be the maturity of own psyche.
    In this he could underesteemate, that other human may teach to use your weak functions. That in a pair relations are not surface just to spread tasks alike in a working group. In a pair (good one) appears personal connection named as love or friendship, where people tend to become more similar to each other. Same as people in a pair join genes to make children, they join minds in a compassion and join lifes in mutual care and cooperations, where 2 become as 1. So duality pair gives an expert to reduce your type's accentuation, where the condition for positive influence on individual psyche maturity is love state in a pair.
    I suspect Jung was too individualistic to understand this positive possibility in duality pairs.

  4. #4
    What's the purpose of SEI? Tallmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Finland
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    4,160
    Mentioned
    305 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CR400AF View Post
    Let's review the letter:



    That's what Jung have specifically opposed against in this letter:

    1) the statistical line of research.
    2) interpreting his work literally while ignoring the inevitable core concepts

    IMO, Socionics is doing pretty well in these two aspects.

    To that extent, actually, I think MBTI is more in line with Big Five. Both are statistical, both use tests, and both interpret I/E in the Non-Jungian way.
    Many people who use MBTI have of course noticed that they really are on to something, that the jungian types are real. But there are too many flaws in MBTI for it to grasp the types 100% correctly. Still, many people type themselves correctly in MBTI, at least by dichotomies, like I typed myself ISFP several years before I found Socionis and could really check things. Ironically, people can get the feeling that MBTI really must be correct because it is just enough correct to help people see that types really exist.

    Socionics is very similar to MBTI in how they describe the functions. It's all approximations, but it's more correct than MBTI and with the help of ITR and model A we can - at least in principle - get the types 100% right. This is in my opinion the biggest advantage of Socionics, that the framwork is corrct and the types can be identified.

    It doesn't really matter to me what Jung would have said about Socionics. At least we have a useful tool for getting to know the real types. Without Socionics there would be total darkness in typology because people just keep repeating the same mistakes MBTI made, and Jung is too difficult to understand without help.
    The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.

    (Jung on Si)

  5. #5
    CR400AF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Location
    Earth
    TIM
    LII 5w6-1w9-2w1
    Posts
    341
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tallmo View Post
    Many people who use MBTI have of course noticed that they really are on to something, that the jungian types are real. But there are too many flaws in MBTI for it to grasp the types 100% correctly. Still, many people type themselves correctly in MBTI, at least by dichotomies, like I typed myself ISFP several years before I found Socionis and could really check things. Ironically, people can get the feeling that MBTI really must be correct because it is just enough correct to help people see that types really exist.
    That's only correct in dichotomies. ISFP is interpreted as Fi-Se in MBTI so if you went into functions it becomes problematic. I also got typed as INTJ in MBTI before I found Socionics. Soon when I read the functions I noticed that I must not be a Te valuer hence the result must be wrong. Luckily I discovered Socionics and I soon confirmed that my correct type is LII.

    When someone is trying to go through the functions in MBTI, there will essentially be a bunch of logical contradictions. That's perhaps why there are many ridiculous theories such as OPS. Attempting to study MBTI in depth is likely to make a person more and more confused and eventually fall into the arms of these rediculous theories.

  6. #6
    Lo'taur ! godslave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2022
    Location
    Southern France
    TIM
    H 694 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,333
    Mentioned
    97 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CR400AF View Post
    That's only correct in dichotomies. ISFP is interpreted as Fi-Se in MBTI so if you went into functions it becomes problematic. I also got typed as INTJ in MBTI before I found Socionics. Soon when I read the functions I noticed that I must not be a Te valuer hence the result must be wrong. Luckily I discovered Socionics and I soon confirmed that my correct type is LII.

    When someone is trying to go through the functions in MBTI, there will essentially be a bunch of logical contradictions. That's perhaps why there are many ridiculous theories such as OPS. Attempting to study MBTI in depth is likely to make a person more and more confused and eventually fall into the arms of these rediculous theories.



    Last edited by godslave; 05-22-2023 at 10:41 AM.

  7. #7
    What's the purpose of SEI? Tallmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Finland
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    4,160
    Mentioned
    305 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CR400AF View Post
    That's only correct in dichotomies. ISFP is interpreted as Fi-Se in MBTI so if you went into functions it becomes problematic. I also got typed as INTJ in MBTI before I found Socionics. Soon when I read the functions I noticed that I must not be a Te valuer hence the result must be wrong. Luckily I discovered Socionics and I soon confirmed that my correct type is LII.

    When someone is trying to go through the functions in MBTI, there will essentially be a bunch of logical contradictions. That's perhaps why there are many ridiculous theories such as OPS. Attempting to study MBTI in depth is likely to make a person more and more confused and eventually fall into the arms of these rediculous theories.
    Yes, I agree. I was just saying that even MBTI will point towards the Jungian types in many cases. People will slightly misunderstand it, but reality will in some cases lead them right. Just like a flawed map of the terrain can still be useful to a limited degree.
    The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.

    (Jung on Si)

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Beyond the Pale
    TIM
    Heretic
    Posts
    7,017
    Mentioned
    151 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Jung was just mad that some schismatic was trying to ruin the perfectly good cult he had going, where people would talk rationally and reasonably about the snakes in their bellies and how the Devil is the secret 4th person of the Christian Trinity. *Insert picture of Space Marine Jung shouting HERESY! here.*

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •